1978-10-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Fonse Faour, Esq., member for the electoral district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Fonse Faour, Esq., member for the electoral district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, introduced by Mr. Edward Broadbent and Mr. Stanley Knowles.

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the position of the government, as enunciated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to actively encourage the expanded use of social insurance numbers outside of social service programs by all levels of government, contrary to the long-standing undertaking of the government to restrict the use, and in view of the serious questions arising from this extended use as they relate to invasion of privacy of the citizen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Crosby):
That this House directs the government to immediately introduce legislation setting forth guidelines and limitations on the use of social insurance or other identification numbers, to protect the rights of citizens against abuses arising from the expansion, without parliamentary approval, of the use of social insurance numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that, according to published reports yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stated that if he were prime minister he would end the public service's right to strike, while at the same time his own party's labour critic was also reported yesterday as stating that if he were labour minister he would not take away the right to strike from the public service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House, noting the potentially disastrous conflict between two of its members, call upon the Minister of Labour to intervene to resolve this dispute before this issue becomes a permanent split or a lock-out takes place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR NORWAY
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, I know that members would want to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor to our country, here on an official visit with his counterpart in Canada regarding their respective obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I refer to His Excellency Rolf Hansen, Minister of Defence for the Kingdom of Norway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 30, 1978
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister who is leading a rump government here today? I guess the rest of the rump is over at the Confederation Centre.
We have not had a progress report on the GATT negotiations for months, and there is considerable alarm in Canada about the progress of GATT as the negotiations have to conclude by the middle of December. We have had newspaper reports that the Japanese and the EEC offers are unsatisfactory to Canada, that nothing has been offered in fisheries, farm products, forest products, non-ferrous metals and agricultural products.
Would the minister bring the House up to date on what is happening at Geneva? Are these reports accurate that the EEC and Japanese offers are unsatisfactory to Canada? If so, what is our strategy? We only have two months to go to the end of the negotiations. Would the minister agree to a full briefing of parliament and arrange time for a debate on these negotiations before they are concluded?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: On the question of briefing of members of parliament, Mr. Speaker, I would be quite ready to have our chief delegate, Mr. Warren, meet with members of opposition parties to have an intensive briefing on the progress of negotiations.
On the question of the deadline, it is true that there is an enormous amount of work to be completed before the deadline suggested, which is some time in December. It is a negotiating session. For example, the European community at one point put on the table certain industrial tariff offers, and later there were certain withdrawals. Whether these are permanent withdrawals or a negotiating technique is uncertain at this time. In any event, we have not yet secured what we regard as advantageous offers from all the participants in the negotiations.
Of course, when it comes to the end of the game, Canada will have to decide whether the benefits we receive justify maintenance of the offers we have put on the table at the conference, so it is much too early to conclude what the results will be. I suggest there is quite a lot of work to do yet, and certainly we are not satisfied that our objectives have been fully met by the proposals that have been put on the table by the major industrial countries.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It is always difficult to pin the Deputy Prime Minister down, so I should like to ask a more specific question. The government now has this report by the second tier committee. The government has a lot of "tears", I know, but this is the second tier

committee. The 23-industry task force report recommends as follows at page 13, paragraph 4:
There are certain manufacturing industries that are vital and where any degree of reduction in protection would be disastrous at this time.
They recommend that these industries be completely exempted from the Tokyo Round. They point to clothing and textiles, which they say is the key case, employing close to
200,000	workers. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell me if the government has exempted the clothing and textile sector of Canadian industry from any lowering of tariffs in the GATT negotiations? Could he also tell me if any other industries have been exempted? Has Canada exempted any industries, in particular clothing and textiles, as recommended?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is provision for exemptions or exceptions from the over-all tariff cut that was proposed, but there is a limit to the number of exemptions that can be introduced because it requires compensation across the board in order to maintain the total tariff cuts.
Let me say, in the case of textiles, that at the present time there are not likely to be substantial cuts taking place at the multilateral trade negotiations. The concerns which the hon. member expressed are shared by quite a number of other countries. It is unlikely that the textile industry will experience the deep cuts that could occur in accordance with the general tariff formula.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are getting a tremendous amount of lack of information in these replies. I will try again in the fisheries sector.
Is it true that the European Economic Community has told Canada that they are not going to reduce their tariffs on Canadian fishery products unless Canada gives them assurance that they will have definite quotas for catching fish species within Canada's 200-mile economic zone? Is that a position taken by the European Economic Community?
Would the Deputy Prime Minister also tell me whether he is going to arrange, not only for a private briefing of members of parliament but for a public briefing of parliament so that the public and industry will know what our position is; and will he provide debating time before any conclusions are reached at Geneva? So there are two aspects to that question, on the specific question of the fishery and the EEC, because the fishing industry of Canada is very much involved in that, and as well the question of public information and debate, which is badly needed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is, to my knowledge, no suggestion that we ought to link the access of Canadian products into the community with commitments that certain quotas would be provided for fish in Canadian territory. Certainly, we would oppose that particular kind of approach because it is understood, within the framework of the negotiations, that countries will make offers and concessions to other countries in return for access to their markets. The principle is
October 30, 1978

one of reciprocity within the framework of the negotiations, and certainly it would be alien to that principle to introduce fish quotas as part of the negotiating process.
With respect to the other question, I cannot assure the hon. member that I could put aside a day for a debate, because of the press of business; but the budget debate will be coming forward and I will undertake at that time to give the House, or have one of my colleagues give the House, as complete a statement on the progress up to date and the difficulties, so that hon. members in that debate, if they so wish, may reply and express their views.


GATT NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. With time running out in the negotiations, what can Canadian farmers expect from the MTN after the negotiations have concluded? Can the minister indicate in general parameters what we can expect in terms of agriculture?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is much too early in the field of agriculture to say. We are attempting to increase access, for example, in the European community for agricultural products and, as the hon. member knows, there is a parallel discussion going on with respect to grains related to the negotiations at Geneva. But it is not possible to say at the moment what agriculture can expect, any more than it is possible to say what manufacturers in the country can expect at the conclusion of the negotiations.
We are pressing ahead to secure the greatest possible access to other markets for all products; that is to say, industrial products, agricultural products and fisheries, and in return for that we expect to be asked to make reciprocal decisions. We have to balance both together at the end of the day to ensure that Canada has received a good deal.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister's general comments this morning give one some indication that the talks are not going very well, that all countries have really bogged down, especially in some of the very important areas, and maybe agriculture is one. Japan is of particular concern to agricultural producers because of the protectionistic policies that it has adhered to in the past.
My question is this: in the specific area of Japan, have we gained any access at all to the Japanese market in the areas of meat, and specifically we are talking about pork and pork products?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret that 1 cannot reply specifically on the question of meat and pork products with regard to the Japanese market. Let me say that, in general, the initial Japanese offers made in the negotiations were, in our view, unsatisfactory and in concert with, certainly, the United States and the European community we have been pressing
Oral Questions
Japan to improve its offer. Some improvement has taken place. We would press for further improvement, particularly in view of the very heavy current account surplus that Japan is presently running with the rest of the world. This is one of the objectives that is certainly behind the negotiations at Geneva, to gain greater access or to sell more in the Japanese market in view of the very great sales being made by Japan in the rest of the world.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: 
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one would hope that if the government does not think during the week, it would do so on weekends.
In a much more serious vein, I have a supplementary question in light of the minister's answer. Considering that the assessors the government is recommending will have no authority to sign the final report, will the minister agree that as a consequence they will not have the bargaining power that is essential, either with the union or the Post Office on the one hand, or with Judge Tremblay on the other, that is necessary to get a final settlement which does justice to the workers and brings continuous peace in the Post Office?


Mr. Ouellet:: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that line of thinking by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I feel that the addition of two assessors will be very helpful and constructive with regard to the work that must be done by Judge Tremblay. We must remember that the responsibility of the mediator-arbitrator, in the final analysis, if he cannot bring the two parties together by successful mediation, will be to draft a collective agreement in his role as arbitrator. This collective agreement will be imposed on both parties. Having two assessors to help him in his work while acting as mediator could be very helpful and constructive. However, adding two persons to the team to draft a collective agreement could result in three collective agreements. That would be very bad.

October 30, 1978
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that an amendment could be introduced, and I am sure there would be agreement on both sides of the House to give it quick passage, to give the chairman, Judge Tremblay, final authority in cases where there is not unanimous agreement to make the binding recommendation. That problem could be removed.
Does the minister not agree that having spokesmen with authority to sign the final report would be much more effective with regard to reaching a final resolution, because the two people would not simply be advisers: they could bargain with the union and the Post Office and, indeed, in the final analysis with the chairman, in getting a much more favourable solution?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, that would put some doubt on the ability and impartiality of the mediator-arbitrator. I think he must be able to carry out his responsibility and bring about a fair and just collective agreement.
It is one thing to say we shall add two assessors to help the mediator-arbitrator in his work, but it is another thing to say, after the fact, that in order to please some postal employees we should change the mandate which has been issued by this House to the mediator-arbitrator and put a new team in place which could probably satisfy some union leaders. I submit to the hon. member that the course of action offered to the employees to appoint someone as an assessor who would help the mediator-arbitrator in his work is, by its nature, a giant step forward in an attempt to solve this dispute. It should be regarded as a positive gesture by the government and not be considered as just another step in the negotiations. I think that procedure has been explored to the fullest, and the employees ought to accept the will of parliament.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that today several ministers are absent as a result of the federal-provincial conference. However, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I would like to put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
There is at present a very serious problem. On one hand, the Canadian government is spending very substantial funds to assist individuals who are retraining and learning a new trade to enable them afterwards to serve Canada while earning their living; on the other hand, when the technical training is completed, especially as far as heavy machinery operators are concerned, they had been told that there was a need for heavy machinery operators and when all expenditures have been incurred they learn there is no job. I would like to ask the

parliamentary secretary what steps the Department of Employment intends to take to enable those who have been trained as heavy machinery operators to get a job when they have made the necessary efforts to be useful in their trade in Canada and honourably earn their living?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Employment and Immigration is trying to maintain active liaison with industry to find out the types of jobs which will become available so that the courses can train people in the skills needed by industry. Because of the time-lag between pupils starting their training and finishing training, it is not always possible to merge the two identically, but efforts are being made to improve the situation so that people are trained for jobs which will become available.


INQUIRY WHETHER VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM WILL BENEFIT FROM NEW FUNDS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I should like to ask him whether he can tell the House today what additional steps the government intends to take in order to further the implementation of the training and job-creation program. Can he tell the House whether a program that has benefited from subsidies during the second phase, that is recognized by all concerned, organizations and middle management to be of value, can he tell the House whether such a program can obtain additional funds to enable it to operate on its own and thus guarantee the employees who worked within its scope to obtain permanent jobs?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, the ultimate test of spending money on manpower training is to have people usefully employed in jobs at the end of their training. All efforts are being expended to make sure money is being spent justifiably and that the results are those desired. To that end, in times of restraint we will certainly be trying to do whatever we can to make sure that the taxpayer is getting the maximum benefit for his dollar.


GATT NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are supplementary to those asked earlier pertaining to GATT and they are directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
October 30, 1978

Since the tabling of the tariff report with respect to fruits, vegetables and other farm products, organizations of farmers and food processors have made repeated and well-substantiated representations to the government to indicate the precarious economic position in which the industry finds itself.
In view of the need for new markets, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us today what new markets he anticipates will result from GATT negotiations either for fresh fruits and vegetables or for processed foods?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the objective of the Canadian delegation at the talks is to increase our access into all markets, but we obviously have a considerable interest in the United States market, in the European community and in Japan because they are big markets indeed. It is impossible to tell at the moment precisely what commodities will be successful in gaining additional access.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, we were described by a gentleman from the European Economic Community, who was familiar with the negotiations, as dealing there "naked as a newborn babe", with very little to offer and obtaining very little.
If new export opportunities are not obtained, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the industry that arrangements will be made for expanded access to our own markets and an element of restriction on imports which are extremely detrimental to agricultural income in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the observer from the European community must have been thinking of some other country, not Canada, when he made a comment of that kind. I believe our negotiators have established a reputation for being very tough and shrewd. For example, following the last round of negotiations it was commonly stated that Canada had received disproportionate benefits. We do not believe that, but that was the image which had been created by our negotiators, and I think the same image is present today.
On the specific question, the hon. member cannot have it both ways: he cannot ask for additional access into other markets for Canadian products and, at the same time, advocate a reduction of access into the Canadian market. This is a reciprocal process and every country which gives benefits at the talks expects to gain advantages from other countries. It is a reciprocal operation and there cannot be a parallel movement to cut tariffs for us and to raise them for others.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been the Good Samaritan, in spite of what the Deputy Prime Minister has stated. We are so recognized by those outside Canada, according to the reports which some of us receive.


Mr. Corbin:: Question.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria wishes to make a speech, perhaps he could be given a special opportunity this afternoon.
Oral Questions
Other participants at GATT have overriding legislation which is used to protect hard-pressed sectors of their economies. Others are using non-tariff barriers or regulations in a multitude of ways to negate concessions which it was felt had been made in good faith. Does the Government of Canada intend to advise our trading partners that it is our intention to protect hard-pressed Canadian industries without compensation, as can be done by the EEC, Japan and the United States, or are we to remain as naked as we have been?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should tell the hon. member that, in addition to negotiations on commodities or the exchange of goods, there is also a very important aspect- perhaps the most important-in the effort to reduce non-tariff barriers to which the hon. member has referred. If we are successful in establishing new codes of conduct for trading countries in that field, that might be more significant than, or as significant as, the exchange of goods.
The hon. member raises the question of the test of injury and how quickly a country can move in order to protect its domestic production against sudden, unexpected and probably unfair competition from abroad. We have been doing quite a number of things in that regard already in Canada, but one of the objectives is to improve and surround more clearly with legal mechanisms the test of injury and the possibility of countries acting to protect their domestic production in the situations I have mentioned.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I am glad that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is back in his place, because I have a question to ask him. Has he managed to reconcile or resolve the difference which arose between him and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment arising out of a "goof', as the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment described it, in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development following the failure of the minister to disallow bylaw 10 of the Squamish Indian band?


Hon. Janies Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member understands the history of the difficulty very well. The difficulty is the one pointed out by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, namely, that there are two statutes. One is the Indian Act, which provides very clearly for bands to pass bylaws dealing with matters of conservation. There is also the Fisheries Act. There is some dispute about which of these two statutes has pre-eminence.
That is the origin of the problem. I am satisfied that between the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and me, with the assistance of conservationists, wildlife people and, particularly, Indians, we can resolve it. However, the pursuit
574

October 30, 1978
Oral Questions
of a resolution will be aided immensely by a degree of reason on both sides.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the possibility of having this matter regulated in the courts. I wonder whether the minister is telling us that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has been persuaded to abandon his responsibilities under the Fisheries Act for the management of Canada's fishing resources.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of silly observation which does not contribute to a solution of the problem.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Donald W. Munro: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTION CANADA'S UN DELEGATES PARTICIPATE IN GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked earlier of the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that about a week ago there were reports that European Economic Community countries were almost ready to scuttle the GATT talks at Geneva because of their refusal to grant any reductions in tariffs on agricultural and fisheries' products to coincide with the reductions being offered by North American countries.
This raises the matter of the contractual link which the Prime Minister announced a few years ago. It seems to be more of a contractual kink than a contractual link, because it was all words and no substance.
Does the government not think it is time to make a direct effort in respect of countries of the European Economic Community to see if something can be done to make the talks in Geneva more worth-while, more substantive and not all talk? Also, does he not believe that our people at the United Nations could be of assistance in this regard, because they have access at all times to representatives of these other countries and the GATT negotiations are an offspring of the United Nations. I think this would have more effect on Canadian than South African problems-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the European Community will want to scuttle the multilateral trade negotiations, nor do I believe any of the participants would want to take the responsibility for scuttling, at this stage or at any stage, the important work which is ongoing at the negotiations. There are many reports to that effect, but I doubt whether that is in the mind of any of the participants.

At the same time, I should say that I would rather see the talks continue in Geneva than have them transferred to the United Nations in New York.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. According to the Conference Board in Canada, the province of Newfoundland will experience a second year of economic decline in 1978, down 2 per cent in productivity over last year.
Since unemployment currently is officially at the 17 per cent level, and more reliable estimates place it around 30 per cent in the province, I should like to ask the minister whether he would consider a special economic program for the province of Newfoundland when he brings in his budget next month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when we draft a budget we always take into account the different regions of Canada. Of course I am aware of the problems in eastern Canada, Newfoundland and other provinces. We always take that into account. Many of the programs of the government are already very oriented to helping people in slow-growth areas.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Over the last few years we have seen what special consideration has done for the province of Newfoundland. Will the minister seriously consider a special economic program for the province at this time? If so, what sort of proposals might he bring into effect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in my last budget there were provisions, special measures, providing accelerated depreciation, greater advantages to the eastern provinces. In addition, government employment programs help those provinces and the equalization payment program gives assistance to the low-income provinces. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has a special vocation in helping out the weakest provinces in Canada. If the hon. member looks at the record seriously, he will find that in the last few years we have always made special efforts to help the provinces experiencing difficulties.
October 30, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of the situation where Great Britain has joined the bad example of certain communist countries, such as the Soviet Union and Cuba, in supplying arms to certain parts of Africa, particularly Zambia, thereby increasing tension in the area. Has the minister made any comments to the United Kingdom in that regard, or is it a case of silence being consent?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on this particular and specific action of the United Kingdom government, I have not had any conversations with the foreign minister of the United Kingdom. I have had many lengthy discussions with him with regard to Southern Africa, of course, as recently as two weeks ago when we were in Pretoria together.
As hon. members of the House will know, the situation is most deplorable. While I do not propose at this moment to comment upon this action one way or another, it illustrates that it is tremendously important-indeed, of the utmost importance-that all parties seek a peaceful solution to the problem.
I think generally it is known that the Rhodesian raids of the last two or three weeks have been at the basis of President Kaunda's request for support. In these circumstances, it becomes a question of one side escalating, then the other side seeking some kind of defence against that escalation, and so it goes. This is the precise reason why we have all been urging the countries of Southern Africa to work toward a peaceful solution, not only in Rhodesia but in Namibia and in the front-line states generally.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister said he is not prepared to comment on that matter at this time, and sort of indicated that the action of Great Britain is support for the Zambianese. Is he prepared to comment on this type of thing in the future, or in fact are we to see a build-up of more and more arms in this very sensitive part of the world?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my reason for refraining from specific comment was that I was answering the specific question, had I discussed it with the British foreign minister? I have not; therefore, I would like to have more information.
My supplementary comments related to the general situation there. Obviously, it would be highly desirable-indeed, no one thinks more along these lines than the United Kingdom government itself-if no country was giving any arms to any of the participants. That is the answer in the long run. As long as we have the Soviet Union, on the one hand, Cuba somewhere else, and some other country somewhere else providing these various movements and various countries with arms, there will
Oral Questions
be a counterdemand by the parties affected. It is desperately necessary to bring this kind of escalation to an end. We must persevere in our efforts to bring about a peaceful solution.
When I have some more specific information on the United Kingdom action, I will consider whether it is useful or in any way helpful to the House to give a more detailed response.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance intend to follow his predecessor's example in preparing his budget by increasing the allowable amount for job-related expenses? That amount is now $250.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will merely note the hon. member's question, and if we decide to adopt certain changes, they will be announced on budget night.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my question by saying to the Deputy Prime Minister how commendable he has been today in the way in which he has answered questions. It is a model for others on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: All of us are deeply concerned about Canadian unity and the success of the dominion-provincial conference which is taking place. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether it is a fact, as suggested by the media, that the Government of Canada, in its relationship with the provinces, has indicated or will indicate a type of ultimatum concerning the Prime Minister's so-called constitutional plan with regard to the Queen of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Senate, to the effect that legislation will be proceeded with by parliament regardless of the attitude of the majority of the provinces which will be deeply affected by these changes if they are made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I attended the early part of the conference this morning and heard the address made by the Prime Minister. I would regard his approach as being the very opposite of an ultimatum to the provinces. That
80065-37!A

October 30, 1978
Oral Questions
was certainly not the tenor or the atmosphere which his speech created this morning. I believe anyone who listened to it would reach the same conclusion.
I assure the right hon. member that there is absolutely no basis for the suggestion in the media that the Prime Minister in any way presented, or will present, the provinces with an ultimatum at this particular conference.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this: has the government decided, as was stated by the Prime Minister outside the conference, that regardless whether the provinces accept the changes he has in mind to which I have referred, the Government of Canada intends to place measures before parliament? Does the government intend to do that, irrespective of the feelings of the provinces which will be greatly affected, as will all Canadians, by such changes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good opportunity to restate what has been the attitude of the government from the very beginning, that the proposals put forward in the paper, and subsequently in the bill, were proposals and were not final decisions. We have said from the beginning, "These are our views. Please express your views." That invitation was again put forward this morning by the Prime Minister to the premiers, "We have presented what we think. Will you now tell us what you think so that we can see if we can reach consensus on the major issues facing us in the way of constitutional reform?"
1 can assure the right hon. gentleman, again, that the original proposals will not be pushed ahead without taking the provinces into account and listening to them, to the joint committee of the House and the Senate and to other interested Canadians. That is the process we propose to follow.


FISHERIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to the Deputy Prime Minister on a matter of great concern to the fishing industry in the part of the country he represents and also right across the nation. I refer to the announcement of the phasing-out of the fishing vessels' insurance program.
In Nova Scotia this weekend a resolution was passed by a large number of fishermen deploring this. I would ordinarily have waited, sir, until the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment was back in the House, but since I contacted him over three weeks ago and have had no definite response I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would indicate his feeling and government policy as to this possible phasing out, keeping in mind that it is not really a restraint-related matter but it is actually showing a profit and is an excellent program.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the important question raised by the hon. member, it is not the intention of the government to reduce the protection made available to the fishermen. It is possible there are other alternatives that can be examined which will provide the same level of protection.
I understand the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has undertaken to consider the matter further and to meet with fishermen to see whether satisfactory alternative arrangements can be worked out to provide the same level of protection to the fishermen.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, but will he undertake to keep in mind that the private insurers, who are for the most part based in areas like New York and London, will be very hard put to provide the same level of protection for the same cost and to provide the same amount of service? Will he undertake to make representation to his cabinet colleagues that it is very unlikely any private insurance program can provide the same type of protection and benefits to Canadian fishermen-over
5,000	of them at this point, I believe-provided by the present program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can agree with the hon. member's financial analysis, but that is not the important thing. The question is whether we can provide alternatives that will be of equal advantage to the fishermen, and that is what we are attempting to do.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Data released by CMHC last week show an alarming and disturbing increase in the number of mortgage payment defaults in respect of the Assisted Home Ownership Program: there were 826 defaults in the first nine months of 1978, more than double the the total of the past four years.
Is the minister aware that, relative to other types of mortgage defaults, the AHOP figures are astronomically high? Does he now admit to the failure of his department's policies, and will he undertake to assure the House that he will take specific measures to resolve the threat of economic disaster which may confront numerous home owners?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker; the Figures which have been published demonstrate in fact that there have been 800 payment defaults out of some 603,000 loans approved. Consequently, if the hon. member wants to make the calculation, he will see that in fact
October 30, 1978

those who did not make their payments represent only a very small percentage of the total number of those, either in the private or the public sector, who obtained guaranteed loans, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and what the hon. member considers as an astronomical number is in fact a very small one.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the financial community believes the recent changes to the AHOP program, namely, the graduated payment mortgages, will increase the likelihood of default, and considering that the situation is likely to worsen as conventional mortgage rates increase in light of recent bank rate hikes, will the minister undertake to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and announce some relief for the home owners who face losing title to their homes? Will he review the situation and announce in the House a more sane and economically viable alternative?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the program which could bring the greatest number of defaults in Canada would certainly be the program which would include the proposals announced recently by the Leader of the Opposition, if they were implemented. The proposals of the Leader of the Opposition would have undoubtedly much more serious consequences on the number of possible defaults than the present Assisted Home Ownership Program.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It is now three years since the government agreed with a motion I introduced in the House to establish a medal in recognition of NATO service. In the last three years there have been a number of undertakings by the minister's predecessor and himself to bring forward this medal. I should like to ask, once again, when some progress will be reached in the production of this medal in recognition of service in NATO.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have only been the minister for two of those three years. The issuance of new medals is not treated lightly, and a number of steps would have to be taken. I expect to announce in the very near future the issuance of a general service medal, rather than a specific NATO medal. A NATO medal produced by Canada would not be appropriate if it was not general throughout NATO. This general service medal will apply to the regulars and the reserves after a minimum length of service in Canada and/or abroad, with special recognition in the form of a clasp for NATO service and other types of distinguished service.
Oral Questions
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I guess I have made the announcement.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture: it concerns the proposed sale by the government of five inland government elevators.
I should like to ask why the government intends to sell these elevators, especially since last year they turned over a profit of $1.3 million and this year the projected profit is some $4 million, while at the same time it is known that the elevators are greatly underutilized. In view of those facts, why does the government want to sell these elevators? Why does it not turn them over to the Canadian Wheat Board so they can be used in a planned and rational grain movement system in this country?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is asking the same question asked of another government member, perhaps with the hope of getting a different answer so he can say we do not agree.
The whole program is to privatize these operations in which the government is involved. It may be that the grain elevator facilities the hon. member has mentioned can be used to a greater extent. I think he fully understands why these elevators were never used to the extent for which they were constructed; namely, because the government and the Wheat Board did not direct grain there as that would be taking grain away from the private sector. The wheat pools in the private sector handle about 80 per cent of the grain produced in western Canada, and that would hurt that operation. In turn, this decision hurt the operation of the government elevator services.
If the wheat pools, or somebody else, want to make an offer in respect of these facilities-some of which are in very good condition, while others are not in such good condition-that will be considered. Perhaps they may be able to make them function in a proper way.


STUDIES OF POTENTIAL CAPACITY OF GOVERNMENT GRAIN ELEVATORS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any studies were carried out that would indicate the potential capacity of those five government-owned elevators, or was the decision to restrict the use of these elevators simply taken in the absence of such a study?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, these elevators, especially the ones which have been updated, meet the standards for fireproofing and have improved grain-

October 30, 1978
Business of the House
handling facilities, car-dumping facilities, truck-dumping facilities and improved loading facilities for either the rail cars or the trucks hauling from the elevators.
If these elevators were run around the clock, it could nearly touch their capacity for handling a tremendous volume of grain. There have been improvements at Prince Rupert, but further improvements could make that elevator even more efficient. However, it would cost millions of dollars. The hon. member himself has criticized us for spending too much money. Whoever takes over these elevators will have to spend millions of dollars, for instance, for dust-collecting equipment to make it safe for the workers.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could answer the specific question; that is, whether or not there was an actual study done and whether or not we, as members of parliament, can get that study. While he is on his feet, could the minister comment specifically on the capacity, or any studies relating to grain-drying and grain-cleaning prior to shipping to the coast?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we have those studies and I am only too willing to give them to the hon. member. They may not be in as much detail as the hon. member would like, but we do know the volume at the scales, the input-output of grain, etc., and we do know the drying capacity of the elevators that have this facility. We will provide that for the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: The House will be aware that after a request that it be deferred for a few days, the draw for private members' bills was held at the end of last week. Again, I would like to refer to the House the practice which has been followed with regard to the introduction of all these bills in the past. As a result of that draw, there are listed on today's order paper approximately 241 bills standing in the names of various hon. members.
It is not practical or possible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of the bills. I, therefore, suggest that we follow the past practice, namely, that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills en bloc so that each may be scrutinized, between now and the time that it is called individually for second reading, in order to allow the Chair to consider whether there are any defects in the bills with respect to the practices and usages of the House.
If we can proceed that way, by unanimous consent, all of the private members' public bills listed for introduction on today's

order paper would be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading, ordered to be printed and be standing for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject, as always, to a subsequent examination as to the procedural regularity of each bill. The House has heard the procedure that I have outlined. Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-201, An Act to amend the National Transportation Act (review and re-hearing).-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2), 1976 (punishment for murder).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-203, An Act to amend the statute Law relating to income tax.-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-204, An Act respecting a Canadian Bill of Rights for Children-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Export Development Act (mining business).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hospital orders).-Mrs. Appolloni.
Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Railway Act (ownership of land where railway line abandoned).-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-209, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act respecting enumeration and other electoral procedures.-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-210, An Act to establish the Canadian Solar Energy Institute.-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography).-Mr. Epp.
Bill C-212, An Act respecting the duration of every House of Commons.-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-213, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-214, An Act to establish a Sunset Law for Canada.- Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-215, An Act respecting war criminals in Canada.- Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (punishment of certain offences).-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-217, An Act to amend the National Film Act.-Mr. Friesen.
October 30, 1978
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution).-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Elzinga.
Bill C-220, An Act respecting the presence of the Flags of Canada in both Houses of Parliament.-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-221, An Act to provide for the establishment of an authority to conserve for public use all abandoned railway lines in Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act to preclude balloting on certain religious holiday.-Mr. Parker.
Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (annual report).-Mr. Roy (Laval).
Bill C-224, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada).-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-227, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Railway Act (fences).- Mr. Collenette.
Bill C-229, An Act respecting the right to life.-Mr. Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay).
Bill C-230, An Act respecting senior citizens.-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-231, An Act respecting the anthems of Canada.- Mr. Jones.
Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Holidays Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (motor vehicle undertakings,)-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
Bill C-234, An Act for the settlement of Labour disputes in essential services.-Mr. Philbrook.
Bill C-235, An Act respecting package tours by air carriers.-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-236, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (corporate and political office prohibited).- Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-237, An Act to provide the emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices.-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).
Bill C-238, An Act respecting the importation of beef.-Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).
Bill C-239, An Act respecting the age of retirement.-Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-240, An Act to amend the Winding-up Act (publication of notices).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (conscientious objectors).-Mr. Epp.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-243, An Act respecting Magna Carta Day.-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Federal Court Act (production and discovery of documents).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Lord's Day Act (penalties).-Mr. Elzinga.
Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (class action).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-247, An Act respecting National Heritage Day.- Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abduction of child).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-249, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters List).-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-250, An Act respecting the registration of Lobbyists.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-251, An Act to amend the Post Office Act.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-252, An Act respecting confidential communications between elected representatives and their constituents.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Clean Air Act.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-255, An Act to register lobbyists.-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Canada Water Act (federal unilateral powers).-Mr. Wertman.
Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-258, An Act to amend the Canada Council Act (Killam-Dunn).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (proportional representation).-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (air crew proxy voting).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-261, An Act respecting the application of local laws to federal bodies, works and undertaking.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-262, An Act to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for provincial consultation.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-263, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (certification of union).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-264, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (mining employees).-Mr. Rodriguez.
[Stage Direction]
October 30, 1978
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-265, An Act respecting public opinion polls.-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (safety of employees).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-267, An Act respecting the international airport at Ottawa.-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-268, An Act respecting the cost of publishing public reports.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (Canadian citizens).-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-271, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.- Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-272, An Act to prohibit aid to foreign countries consistently violating human rights.-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography).-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Railway Act (protective fencing).-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliation).-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-276, An Act to encourage the growth of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill Q.-211, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (partisan activity by Ministers' staffs).-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-279, An Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia".-Mr. Nowlan.
Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (rights of persons under arrest).-Mr. Symes.
Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Transport Act respecting the transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous substances.-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-283, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1979 (duration of House of Commons).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Bank Act (qualifications for directors).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (driving while disqualified under Provincial Statute).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-287, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Robinson.

Bill C-288, An Act to protect individuals, companies and businesses from the direct and indirect consequences and pressures of Foreign Boycotts, Requests or Conditions.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act to provide for the standardization of warranties and to define the minimum provisions thereof.-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-290, An Act respecting the Televised Advertisement of Beer and Ale Commercials.-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-292, An Act to amend the National Housing Act.- Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-293, An Act concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada (to stop exporting jobs).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act.- Mr. De Bane.
Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (notices and advertisements).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vani-er).
Bill C-296, An Act to amend the Railway Act (handicapped passengers).-Mr. Martin.
Bill C-297, An Act respecting the sale of firecrackers to minors.-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-298, An Act to amend the constitution of Canada (duration of a House of Commons).-Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-300, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (educational use of programs).-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-301, An Act respecting the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons of Canada.-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-302, An Act to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-303, An Act to amend the Bank Act (qualification of directors)/-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expense period).-Mr. Balfour.
Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (promotional coupons and savings stamps).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-306, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-307, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-308, An Act to establish the electoral district of Parliament Hill.-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
October 30, 1978
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-309, An Act respecting the conditions under which public servants may accept employment upon leaving the public service.-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-310, An Act for the promotion and advancement of renewable energy.-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation of children).-Mr. Epp.
Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (controlled drugs).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-313, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-314, An Act respecting relief to non-smokers in transit.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-315, An Act respecting the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Federal Court Act (executive privilege).-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.- Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (partisan poll officers).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Environmental Contaminants Act.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act (corporate objects).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-324, An Act to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-325, An Act respecting disclosure of credit rating records.

Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-326, An Act respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill.-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-327, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada Sea Coasts Conservation Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-328, An Act to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act.-Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-329, An Act to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-330, An Act to prohibit aid to foreign countries violating human rights.-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining.-Mr. Jelinek.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-332, An Act respecting the continental shelf.-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-333, An Act to divide the calendar year into three parliamentary semesters.-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-335, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act.- Mr. Jones.
Bill C-336, An Act to provide for the establishment of the Office of Archeological Curator for Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-337, An Act to readjust the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Quebec.-Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve).
Bill C-338, An Act to amend the Canada Water Act.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-339, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-340, An Act respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-341, An Act to provide for the establishment of an Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (disability pension).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-344, An Act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-345, An Act to amend the Railway Act (definitions).-Mr. Brisco.
Bill C-346, An Act to amend the Northern Inland Waters Act.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-347, An Act to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices.-Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve).
Bill C-348, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-349, An Act to amend the constitution of Canada (federal general elections).-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-350, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (alimony and maintenance orders).-Mr. Huntington.
Bill C-351, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (right to work).-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-352, An Act to amend the Federal Court Act (disclosure of documents).-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-353, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (use of contributions).-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Department of the Environment Act (fisheries).-Mr. McGrath.
582
[Stage Direction]
October 30, 1978
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-355, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-356, An Act respecting the importation of beef and veal.-Mr Hargrave.
Bill C-357, An Act respecting representation in the House of Commons.-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-358, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Rimouski-Temiscouata).-Mr. Allard.
Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cattle rustling and range cattle).-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-360, An Act for the control of forms in the public service.-Mr. Hnatyshyn.
Bill C-361, An Act to amend the National Transportation Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-362, An Act respecting the age of retirement.-Mr. Mitges.
Bill C-363, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-364, An Act respecting the preservation and surrender of constituency records.

Mr. Dick.
Bill C-365, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (prisoners enfranchised).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-366, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-367, An Act to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act (recruiting by advertising).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-368, An Act to amend the House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act (by-elections).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-369, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (strike ballots).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-371, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reporting names of accused).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-372, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).
Bill C-373, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-374, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (increased minimum hourly wage).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-375, An Act respecting the implementation of International Labour Organization Convention 96, concerning fee charging employment agencies.-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-376, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act to provide for the appointment by a candidate of an Agent-at-Large with authority to observe the official count.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax-East Hants).

Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage containers).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independent members of the House of Commons).-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (loan sharking).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (aluminum wiring).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-382, An Act to amend the Bank Act (sale advertisements).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-383, An Act respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-384, An Act respecting the policy of financing transportation in non-metropolitan areas.-Mr. Tessier.
Bill C-385, An Act to amend the Lord's Day Act.-Mr. Lee.
Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-387, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (crash restraint protection devices).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-388, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-390, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (by-elections).-Mr. Hare.
Bill C-391, An Act respecting trafficking in exotic pets.- Mr. Watson.
Bill C-392, An Act respecting fair foreign exchange.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-393, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff (games of violence).-Mr. Brisco.
Bill C-395, An Act respecting Public Referendums in Canada on questions relating to capital punishment.-Mr. Lawrence.
Bill C-396, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-397, An Act to amend the Indian Act (equality for native women).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-398, An Act to regulate the business of selling and dealing in Air Travel Services.-Mr. Hnatyshyn.
Bill C-399, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.-Mr. Woolliams.

October 30, 1978
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-400, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-401, An Act to recognize indigenous peoples among the founding peoples of Canada.-Mr. Philbrook.
Bill C-402, An Act respecting noise in factories.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-403, An Act respecting the release of scientific information dealing with the content of any substance found in the food system.-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-404, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (N.S.F. cheques).-Mr. Turner.
Bill C-405, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-406, An Act respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-407, An Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day.-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-408, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic displays).-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-409, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (strike or lockout).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-410, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-412, An Act to amend the Plant Quarantine Act.- Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-413, An Act respecting the utilization of Canada's water resources.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-414, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (day-fines).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-415, An Act respecting votes in labour unions.-Mr. Philbrook.
Bill C-416, An Act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-417, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-418, An Act to provide for the establishment of the Office of Parliament Hill Curator.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-419, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (reserve forces training leave).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-420, An Act to amend the Bank Act (provincial ownership of banks).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (wilful destruction of laid up colours).-Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).
Bill C-422, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (attendance of educational institutions outside Canada).-Mr. Wenman.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (noise pollution).-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Rondeau.
Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion and the unborn infant).-Mr. Roche.
Bill C-426, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (off-track betting).-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
Bill C-427, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (benefits to adopting parent).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mandatory breathalyzer and blood tests).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (guidelines respecting portrayal of sex and violence).-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-430, An Act respecting the national anthem of Canada.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-431, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (right to work).-Mr. Elzinga.
Bill C-432, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-433, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (party status).-Mr. Beaudoin.
Bill C-434, An Act to establish a press council for Canada.-Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton).
Bill C-435, An Act to amend the Railway Act (signs, notices and forms).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-436, An Act respecting the acquisition of certain property of International Nickel Company without compensation.-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-437, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.- Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).
Bill C-438, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (culpable homicide redefined).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-439, An Act to amend the Criminal Code respecting the publication and dissemination of pornograhic material.- Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-440, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (secret ballot).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-441, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable donations).-Mr. Crombie.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 141, 182 and 375.
584

October 30, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Amount Granted


Mr. Mitges: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, by province, how many applications for assistance were submitted under the (a) Cultural Enrichment Support Programme (b) Personnel Development Assistance Programme (c) Teaching-Aids Development Assistance Programme and, in each case (i) what amount was requested and what amount was received (ii) what are the names and addresses of the applicants and what ethnic group or organization did they represent?
British Columbia
Trans Canada Alliance of German Canadians	1,875
(German)
10615-160th Street, Surrey, B.C.
Vancouver Multicultural Society (Multicultural)	3,000
1254 West-7th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.
Total	$34,290
(c)	Teaching Aids Development Assistance Program
(i) requested: $151,894	granted: $139,350
Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multicultural- British Columbia
ism)): Records have not been maintained in a manner which would enable the department to extract the required information readily and without an inordinate amount of work, time and cost, however the following information is available:
Alberta
(a)
Cultural Enrichment	Support Program	. Manitoba
	Number of	Total Amount of
Region	Grants Made	Grants MadePacific	66	$ 81,760Prairie	163	143,240Ontario	216	468,654Quebec	34	173,296Atlantic	10	4,700Total	489	$871,650 _ , . Ontario
In many cases, applications were filed on behalf of several schools; a total of 885 supplementary language schools were assisted.
(ii) Hebrew Education Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Jewish Community Fund and Council and the Canadian Zionist Federation (Jewish)
950 W. 41st Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.
Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Businessmen's Club (Ukrainian)
10415-67 Street, Edmonton, Alberta
Education Committee-Winnipeg Jewish Community Council Inc. (Jewish)
370 Hargrave Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2K1
Icelandic National League (Icelandic)
76 Middle Gate, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 2C4
Lithuania Canadian Community Inc. (Lithuanian)
1011 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M6H 1A8
Sadochok Pre-School Centre (Ukrainian)
83 Christie Street, Toronto, Ontario
Walpole Island Culture Club (Native Indian) P.O. Box 155, Wallaceburg, Ontario N8A 4L6


[Stage Direction]
(b)	Personnel Development Assistance Program
(i)	requested: $41,635	granted: $34,290
Ontario	Amount granted
(ii)	Armenian Educational Committee	$	270
(Armenian)
P.O. Box 4015, Station "D", Hamilton, Ont.
Centro Scuola e Cultura Italiana (Italian)	5,250
756 Ossington Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G
3T9
Croatian Schools of Canada (Croatian):	10,000
4 Croatia Road, Site 37, P.O. Box 4, R.R. 2,
Sudbury, Ontario
Education Commission, Ukrainian Canadian	4,800
Committee (Ontario Council) (Ukrainian)
233 Bernard Avenue, London, Ontario
Hamilton and District Multicultural Council	740
(Multicultural)
35 Catharine Street South, Hamilton, Ontario
Polish Teachers' Association in Canada (Polish)	3,285
288 Roncesvalles Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
Walpole Island Culture Culture Club (Native	1,110
Indian)
P.O. Box 155, Wallaceburg, Ontario N8A 4L6
Quebec
Free Hebrew for Juniors (Jewish)	14,400
4649 Van Horne, Montreal, Quebec
Total	$139,350
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister during a 1977 visit to London and the western Ontario area in the course of a speech state that Canadians were too concerned with summer homes in the country and two cars in the yard and, if so (a) what were the exact words he used (b) in what location did he make the statement and to what audience (c) is the Prime Minister aware that radio news broadcasts carried voice clips of such a statement?
2.	Has the government adopted a policy to close the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake as a restraint and economy measure and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Has the government adopted a policy to sell one of the two $85,000 Cadillacs used by the Prime Minister as a restraint and economy measure and
(a)	if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
Quebec
Free Hebrew for Juniors (Jewish)
4649 Van Horne, Montreal, Quebec
Trans Canada Alliance of German Canadians, Quebec Branch (German)
175 Deguire No. 1012, St. Laurent, Quebec
ooo Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council): See reply to question 347 of the third session 960 of the thirtieth parliament, Hansard No. 139, page 6442, dated June 15, 1978.

October 30, 1978


Mr. Malone: Was Mr. W. O. Morrison hired by the Prime Minister's office and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is the termination date of his employment (c) what is his salary per annum (d) what are his travelling expenses arrangements and what items is he able to include as expenses in the operation of his job?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable, (d) Not applicable.


Roger Carl Young: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WAYS AND MEANS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the consent of the House to return to tabling of documents?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), and in accordance with Standing Order 60, I am tabling a notice of ways and means and I ask you to designate the order of the day necessary for the consideration thereof.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table proposed Standing Orders of the House and Rules of the Senate with regard to members of parliament and conflict of interest. This is subsequent to the bill which has been introduced.
The Address-Mr. Nielsen



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Ursula Appolloni for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Crosbie) (p. 238).
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that I should be participating in this debate today, the first day of the first ministers' conference. The representation that the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) referred to, on the views of all Canadians being sought with respect to the form of their constitution, I am afraid does not hold water. The territories were assured, in correspondence by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with the premiers, that they would be represented at the federal-provincial conferences of first ministers, the Yukon by its commissioner and the Northwest Territories by its commissioner. Both would, in the words of the Prime Minister, "be part of the federal delegation."
These commissioners, as the House is aware, are appointed public servants, appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, from whom they take their instructions. Of course whatever the minister says is followed, because unless his instructions are followed-which theoretically come from the governor in council-the commissioners would not have their jobs very long. But we in the Yukon, sir, are not even enjoying that degree of participation, if it can be called participation at all, in this very important conference on the affairs of our country because we have no commissioner.
The commissioner of the Yukon resigned last August, but then he really didn't resign, and should have resigned a good deal sooner if he followed the example of the ex-minister of labour of this government and the example of the attorney-general of Ontario, and the examples of the other ministers across the way who have tendered their resignations. In any event-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The list is too long.


Erik Nielsen: As my hon. friend has said, the list is too long, and I do not want to take up the time in my remarks to go through the whole list, except to say that they did the proper thing.
As 1 say, the commissioner of the Yukon has resigned, but he has not resigned. Because of pending criminal charges against him, he has "stepped aside", to use his words. We in the Yukon were all under the impression that stepping aside meant leaving the post, but yet he has not stepped aside. The commissioner says that he has stepped aside and has discussed that action with the minister, but he is still there. He still draws his salary and occupies a government house, but he is not performing any of the functions with respect to the job.
Indeed, the daily affairs of the Yukon are now being carried out by an administrator, also appointed by the Minister of

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a gentleman who has been at that post less than a year. The day to day affairs are really being managed by the elected members or the executive committee. We are totally unrepresented at that most important conference taking place today because of this situation.
I presume that the commissioner of the Northwest Territories is present at the conference, but a fat lot of good that will do him because, as part of the federal delegation, he will be sitting there as another civil servant and the views of northerners will not be heard whatsoever. That is the main subject upon which I wish to speak today.
I received a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on July 25, 1978, in which he refers to a questionnaire that it is my habit to circulate throughout the Yukon from time to time. In the letter he refers to the questions with respect to provincial status where I was seeking to establish, through the questionnaire, what proportion of Yukon residents was in favour of it, and what proportion was opposed. He writes as follows:
I am puzzled by question number 4. I would be most interested in knowing what method you have in mind to pay for the cost of provincehood for the Yukon without an increase in taxes or alternatively, a reduction in government services, both of which are underlying premises of question 4.
I would be most interested if you could write to me and elaborate on the ways this could be accomplished.
With tongue in cheek he finishes by saying:
I trust the discussion of this problem will not compromise the well known position of your party.
Because a full reply to the letter would have constituted several pages, if not a small book, I decided to use the vehicle of the throne speech debate to reply. I trust when he receives Hansard tomorrow he will read my remarks carefully and take them as a reply to his letter.
It is well known that the national policy of this party is that if it be the desire, the will, of the people of the Yukon, that if the people of the Yukon want provincial status, that will be achieved within the first term of office of prime minister Clark and his government. That is as it should be. We in northern Canada, as Canadians, are asking for no more but no less than the rights and privileges enjoyed by all other Canadians. The answer to the questionnaire which I sent out came back with 65 per cent of those returning it indicating the affirmative, namely, that they would desire provincial status.
The position of the New Democratic Party on this point has always been one of waffling. They say out of one side of their mouths that fully responsible government is a good thing, that all Canadians should enjoy it, and the Yukon is no exception. Then they say, "Mind you, you are not ready for it yet, but sometime in the future it will be satisfactory to meet this very valid desire of the citizens of the Yukon."
On the other hand, the position of the government can best be summed up by using the words of the Prime Minister around August 17 last year. In Whitehorse, he said that the

Yukon would never be a province within his lifetime. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish the Prime Minister any ill will, but if he is setting that timetable all I can do is hasten his demise because the sooner the people of the Yukon are allowed to express their will on this matter, and the sooner we have a government that will respect that will, the sooner we are going to have the same rights and freedoms that are enjoyed by all Canadian citizens.
I want to contrast the position of the Prime Minister with the position of his own party in the Yukon. The Yukon provincial Liberal party was established four years ago, in 1974. As stated in its constitution, its objectives were as follows:
(a)	To advance the social and economic interests of all the people of the Yukon;
That is laudable.
(b)	To advocate and support Yukon Liberal principles and policies;
Whatever is meant by that.
(c)	To secure full responsible government and provincial status for the Yukon.
They at least are in tune with the wishes of the people of the Yukon. We now find that very noted Liberals, including the Prime Minister, are saying that provincial status is certainly not going to be achieved within his lifetime, and our estimable senator in the other place, Senator Lucier, saying that provincial status is something the people of the Yukon do not deserve, that it is just a stupid policy entirely.
In a draft paper entitled "Outline Platform," issued in 1974, the objectives of the party are set out. The first heading is "Provincial Government" with the subheading "Policy Aim: to achieve provincial status." The next heading is "Policy Objectives," and I will have something to say about this policy of theirs later. It lists the objectives as follows:
-immediate authority for the administration, distribution and disposal of Yukon land
-totally elected executive
-evolution of the role of Commissioner to that of Lieutenant Governor -assume immediate responsibility for forestry, health, solicitor general's office, and those other administrative areas provincial in scope -establish a formula for taking over responsibility for resources
I think the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) will be interested in the next one:
-to achieve an end to the Indian Act by a negotiated fair land settlement, with strong Yukoner input, between Yukon Indians and the federal government, to achieve:
-eradication of racial inequities
-a land in which everyone is subject to the same laws and has the same responsibilities to the Yukon
So, Mr. Speaker, four years ago the Yukon Liberal party took a firm stance in favour of what we in this party stand for nationally, but at the same time the Prime Minister and the government were refusing us full participation in the democratic life of our country. The Liberal party of the Yukon was completely swallowing itself because of the Prime Minister's statement a year ago last August to the effect that provincial status is not a good idea.
October 30, 1978

The only way we are going to have an input into the important questions being discussed this week is by having the same powers as all other Canadians.
I should refer to just one clause in the constitution amendment bill which will be under discussion at the conference taking place this week. Clause 11, for instance, sets the term of the elected assemblies at the federal and the provincial levels, whilst clause 28 makes it clear that the charter may be extended to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories in the same manner as to the provinces. Surely this is a question upon which we in the Yukon should be making the decisions. What right have the nameless and faceless hordes of bureaucrats here in Ottawa with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to impose their decisions and will upon the people of the Yukon?
Of course the position of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) is the same as that of the Prime Minister; it had better be or he would go the same way his predecessor went when his views differed. "Participatory democracy" seems to have become unfashionable these days. They brag about "the consultative process." They speak about consulting with the people before decisions are made. That was the thrust of the answer given by the President of Privy Council today in answer to a question from this side of the House. "We have presented our views", he said; "we expect the views of the provinces now to be presented."
I am sure that hon. members do not realize the difficulties under which we operate in the Yukon with respect to land. It is virtually impossible to acquire the smallest piece of land in the Yukon for residential purposes or for a private developer. It is, of course, held in the name of the Crown federal. While they deny the right of the people of the Yukon to administer the disposition and the acquisition of lands, and they deny even the simplest application of an individual to acquire a small piece of land to develop it whether it be for commercial, industrial or for private purposes, at the same time they give away thousands of square miles under the COPE agreement. The minister, I understand is going to sign the agreement in principle either tomorrow or the next day without any consultation with the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon who sit on their assembly, and indeed without any consultation whatsoever with any of the native groups of the Yukon.
Virtually thousands of square miles have been given away to the Inuvialiut people of Northwest Territories. In addition, the minister, by unilateral act, established a wilderness area of
5,000	square miles in the Yukon. Does he discuss it with the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon sitting in their wholly elected assembly? He does not. Does he discuss it with the native people of the Yukon? He does not. And this is the process of consultation!
Notwithstanding the objections of the people of the Yukon, all of them, native and white alike, to the provisions of that COPE agreement, the minister is still going to be travelling to the Northwest Territories in a day or two to sign the agree-
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
ment in principle. That is not my idea of the consultative process. Contrast that, thousands of square miles that been ceded by the minister of Yukon lands, with the pitiful story of the people of the community at Haines Junction attempting to obtain 13 acres of land to provide for the orderly development of their community. Thirteen acres were finally obtained this year but it is not yet finalized because there is still the red tape of government to go through. But the people of that community first asked for these 13 acres in 1972 and six years had to go by, longer than the total elapsed time of the existence of native organizations in the north in their negotiations for a settlement of their claims. Thirteen acres they could not get, and yet thousands and thousands of acres the government literally gives away with the stroke of a pen. This is not our idea of the democratic process. We have said repeatedly that the title to lands in the Yukon should be in the hands of the elected members of the legislative assembly. That is one of the ways that development of the Yukon could be stimulated in order to permit for the national good the true potential of this resource rich area in Canada.
The other example I want to draw to the attention of members is the position of this government with respect to the length to which they are prepared to go in negotiating the settlement of aboriginal rights in the Yukon. Again, they are prepared to cede to the native organizations a proper stance on the part of the government. The only difference we have is one of degree. There are thousands of square miles on land given away but none to any other segment of the Yukon society which, incidentally, constitutes 80 per cent of the population. The government is also prepared to cede, by way of negotiation, the right to resources in hundreds of square miles of land in the Yukon. Revenues from those resources the native organizations have demanded and they are going to get them. Again, any difference in viewpoint is one of degree.
They are going to get a share of resource revenue from resources mined in the Yukon, but not a word as to the same rights being given to the elected assembly of the Yukon. So there seem to be two standards that the minister is practising here, and of course he wears two conflicting hats in his portfolio. That is a matter a Conservative government would clear up in a hurry, namely, the splitting of that portfolio so there would not be this constant conflict with every decision that the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Faulkner) has to make and the juxtaposition to decisions he makes with respect to developing the north, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
That brings me to another subject which is dear to the hearts of Yukoners at the moment, and that is the northern pipeline. This is the natural gas pipeline which is being constructed to bring the product from Prudhoe Bay through Canada to the United States. The Lysyk inquiry recommended the setting up of a heritage fund that would provide the basis upon which Yukoners could achieve legitimate aspirations with respect to the same rights and privileges enjoyed by all other Canadians. That heritage fund was negotiated down the tube by the President of the Privy Council in his negotiations

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
with the United States. So there are all sorts of onerous expenses which are being incurred now by the taxpayers in the Yukon in furtherance of this federal project without one red cent being spent or guaranteed by the federal government. But then we are used to being treated that way.
With respect to the land policy of the government, I neglected to make mention of the current executive assistant to the minister. He is supposed to be, and certainly he should be if he isn't, the person who advises the minister with respect to Yukon affairs because theoretically he keeps his finger on the pulse of Yukon opinion. That current executive assistant ran for election in the territorial council in 1974. He was not successful, I might add, but I have here one of his pieces of election material. I would think that the minister would take advice from a person who occupies a position that close to him. He says in his brochure with respect to land policy:
Land has to be made available to Yukoners who want to:
Own a home Build a cabin Operate a farm
All planning must be designed to meet these needs. There is room for everyone, and you must be given the right to decide where you want to live.
Maybe the executive assistant has lost this pamphlet. I could send him a copy. He might once again prevail upon his minister to adopt those views. With regard to resources, he stated:
Ottawa collects the revenue from Yukon resources. Until this money is allowed to stay here,-
Presumably he wants it to stay in the Yukon.
-the costs of essential services such as water, sewer, and streets must be paid by Ottawa, not on a cost-sharing basis-but 100 per cent. This will help to hold property taxes at the present level.
That is a very sound policy and position for the executive assistant to have taken. I only wish he could convince his minister to adopt those policies. I cannot make reference to him. If I could, I would point out that he is in the gallery. However, I do not even see him.
This brings me to the NCPC. The short answer to the minister's puzzlement expressed in his letter of July 25 this years is: if the government in Ottawa will leave the resource revenues with us, transfer the lands to the jurisdiction of our elected people and transfer the resources to us, we will look after ourselves. Indeed, we more than pay our way.
If we had taken any part in the negotiation of those pipeline provisions, we certainly would have seen to it that other levers of negotiation were used with more effect than they were. That is the short answer to the question of the minister-how can we achieve provincial status and pay for it without an increase in taxes? Simply leave the revenues generated in the Yukon there. At least I have the small consolation of knowing that the minister's executive assistant supports me in that position. As I say, I wish he could marshall the views of the Liberal party in the Yukon to be tuned into the same wave length in order to give him greater strength in making his position known to the
[Mr. Nielsen.)
minister and to convince the minister that is the proper course to take.
With regard to the Northern Canada Power Commission, I want to cite a small example in order to knock holes in the argument of the government that we cannot pay our own way. If the government would stop making costly decisions and costly errors in the Yukon, we could with these resource revenues pay our own way.
The power project which was just completed at Aishihik was originally placed in our estimates in this place at $11 million. The final cost being paid by the consumer in the Yukon is $46 million, an overrun of some $35 million. It is a federal Crown corporation which, in my view, and in the view of many Yukoners, should be a Yukon Crown corporation. The federal government overspent $35 million, and the legislation under which the corporation is set up requires that the consumer in the Yukon pay for that dreadful error of the federal government.
When they should be bringing new sources of power into production in order to meet the growing demands of resource rich projects, they are sitting on their hands. The lead time when the commission should have been acting has now gone. The power is required now. There will literally be no further mineral development in the Yukon until such time as additional sources of power are on stream. It will take between three and eight years to achieve any such power development
The pipeline is going ahead. It is going to be so designed to use electrical energy for pumping the product through the pipe. However, NCPC has taken no steps in order to establish power to achieve that purpose at, I might add, great savings in the transmission of that gas. That is one small example of how the Yukon could meet the demands which would be placed upon it by the achievement of provincial status.
There is one other point I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members before resuming my seat. It has to do with native land claims. The position of the government, taken unilaterally without any consultation with the native people, was to freeze the availability of any land in the Yukon for disposition until the native claims had been settled. That has almost brought development to a standstill.
The government is concerning itself more with social and cultural development than it is with development of our resources. The position on this side is, and always has been, that there is no reason why negotiations for the just settlement of land claims cannot proceed hand in hand with industrial and other development in the north without the one prejudicing the other.
The government makes great exceptions with regard to the land freeze. As soon as it needs a chunk of the Yukon to settle the claim of the Inuvialiut people, it takes several thousand square miles to satisfy that claim, and freezes it for other purposes. Certainly it is not for the purposes of the ordinary citizen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.
October 30, 1978

He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I thank hon. members for their tolerance. I do not intend to continue except to sign a footnote to what I have said. I started out by saying that I wanted to answer a letter of the minister of July 25 this year as to how we can achieve provincial status without increasing taxes. The simple answer is to leave us the resource revenues and give us the land. Leave us those revenues and we will manage very nicely, thank you.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record a few things that have come to my attention in the last few days and weeks about Canada. Last week a great many of us paid our respects to a former member of this House, a former minister of agriculture, former minister of energy, mines and resources, and late of the Senate. I refer to the Hon. J. J. Greene.
We talk a lot in this House and in this country about unity, what Canada means to us. We recognize this as the greatest country in the world. It was founded in a rather unique way by two founding races. The fact that we have lived together so long and so peacefully makes us the envy of the world.
Today our constitution is being discussed. It is probably one of the most fragile, federal constitutions in the world. I can think of no other constitution which gives to the provinces so much authority and so much freedom.
Several weeks before he passed away, the Hon. J. J. Greene wrote a poem entitled "I Too Had A Dream". I am going to read it into the record:
I too had a dream,
A dream of a land
Where they would deem
Two languages, two cultures
And all their treasures beyond esteem
Would belong to all, out of hand.
But not so said the Vultures And the dream's but a dream It would seem.
I too had a dream,
A dream of a land Enriched as none had been,
By free men, respected for developing here The ways of the lands they had once seen And sharing with us, be we Franc or Anglo Their ways as diverse as the sand But the Pygmies said NO So the dream's but a dream It would seem.
I too had a dream
That once a year in ol' Quebec
The Peewee Hockey Players were to be seen
And that when asked if it was great
The red-headed kid from Saskatchewan did state
The Address-Mr. Whelan
I know now why they call them the
Flying Frenchmen-"Can those kids ever skate!"
And Guy Lafleur and the Rocket belong to us too
Just as Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe belong a vous
And all we need is to think in all things
As we do in hockey
That whether Anglo or Franc or Uke
We'll take pride in excellence that is no fluke
We'll overcome together the road so rocky
And in doing so, the dream will come true.
I too had a dream Nothing original 'twould seem The dream that the Fathers
And John A and Laurier and King, and Pearson and yes,
Meighen and Borden had long before seen And in such company I must confess My courage returns The flame again burns.
And in my heart of hearts I am Again keen
That the Pygmies and Vultures we will spurn And the Vision of McGee will come true The dream will stretch like the Shield of Achilles from ocean unto Ocean blue.
That's up to you, and you et vous If you believe in the dream as I do.
Mr. Speaker, at the service for the late Hon. J. J. Greene, his daughter read that. He was an Anglican, but the service was held in the Catholic cathedral in Arnprior. Little people of every description, ditch diggers, truck drivers, politicians, Supreme Court judges, and farmers, were all there to pay their respects to this man who really believed in Canada. As one who knew Joe Greene from the time he entered this House to the time he left, I can say he truly was a great Canadian and one who really believed in what Canada stood for.
I want to touch on some things when we talk about unity and what it means to me as a person born in Canada, not like many others who chose Canada to be their home. We who were born here sometimes take Canada for granted; not so other people who came from other lands to make Canada their home, to contribute to this great country. My wife is one of those people. Her dad came to Canada in 1929 and went to Saskatchewan. Those of us who read anything about the economics of that time-and I see some in the House who would remember the economics much better than I do, because in 1929 I would have been five years of age-know how severe conditions were. My father-in-law came to Canada at a time when the farmers could not even pay the wages of their hired men. At any event, he ended up in the soup lines in the great city of Toronto in the winter of 1933. He went to the most southerly part of Canada in the spring of 1933 to work as a hired man for $15 a month. Ultimately, he became a successful farmer though his trade was that of a mason-he was an expert mason, bricklayer and plasterer, having been trained in that trade in Yugoslavia which was part of the old

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Whelan
Austro-Hungarian empire from where he came. He hardly ever used his trade in Canada to make a living because there were just no jobs available in that line. As I say, he became a very successful farmer.
Needless to say, he well remembered his first nine years in Canada, right back to the first one, and he also remembered who was in power. Needless to say, he was something like the former leader of the good old Tory party, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield)-he is sitting in the House at the present time. The hon. gentleman made a speech I well remember-it wasn't according to his written text, but that is a lot like the speeches the Minister of Agriculture makes; all it says on the top of my brief is "Notes for a Speech".
As I mentioned, the former leader of the Conservative party made a speech, and the heading which was placed over the press report of that speech was "The Good Old Days". He went right back to the first world war, all through the twenties, all through the thirties and into the terrible second world war. And the notable part of it was, he said the good old days really started after the war. He talked about the days when there was no unemployment insurance, when there was no hospitalization program, when there was no medicare, when there were none of these programs which look after the unfortunate in our society. Then the hon. member went into the years after the last terrible war and described how these social programs had come about. Those were what he called the good old days.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax was quite sincere when he talked about the good old days. He was recognizing that the good old days took place in this century. He was also recognizing which party was in power and had the most to do with those good old days, not the bad old days he had been talking about before.
I just put some of these thoughts on the record when we talk about unity, when we talk about economics. When I hear what some people are saying about the economics of the country and about the conditions of its industry, and the future of this country, I am reminded of something which happened in my constituency. There was a man went there by the name of Roy Bennett, president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada. I am not going to read the whole of the speech he made but I will put part of what he had to say on the record. He was speaking at a sod turning ceremony for the new plant in Canada. Among other things, he said;
Interestingly, it was the prime minister at the time when Ford started operations in Windsor, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who presently holds that distinction.
He was talking about the prime minister who served the longest term of office in Canada, and who still holds that record. And we know that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a Liberal, too. I thought it was unique in some respects, because here is the Ford Motor Company making an investment of $550 million, the largest investment the company has ever made outside its operations in the United States of America, the largest it has ever made in Canada since its beginning 75 years ago.
Not very far away from them we find General Motors investing over $400 million, and again not very far away,

Maple Leaf-Unilever investing $96 million. Right next door to them United Co-operatives of Ontario is investing $22 million. A few miles to the east Labatt-Redpath is investing over $140 million. Ciba-Geigy is investing nearly $2 million right next to my area. I could go on and mention others who are investing large amounts of money at the present time in southwestern Ontario.
I hear the economic pygmies talk about gloom and doom in this country. Does Ford Motor Company not have economic advisers? Ford has the best advisers money can buy. General Motors has the best economic advisers money can buy. So does Maple Leaf-Unilever. Do UCO and Labatt-Redpath, not have the best economic advisers money can buy? Are the economic advisers they have stupid or ignorant? Do they lack the ability to advise the directors of those companies that they should be investing money in Canada at this time? We know they have the best economic advisers. Their advisers are living in 1978, 1979, and into the future. That is why they are telling their companies that the best place in which to invest their money is Canada. Many other people are telling them the same thing, but some hon. members opposite would try to put into people's minds the idea that Canada is a terrible place to be in and that it is terribly mismanaged economically. That message is certainly not getting through to Ford, General Motors, or Maple Leaf-Unilever. Unilever is one of the largest corporations in the world. Labatt-Redpath and Ciba-Geigy, another world company, are investing in Canada because they realize that Canada has the greatest of everything. No matter what anyone wants to say, our standard of living is second to none in the world. Our way of life is second to none in the world.


An hon. Member:: Oh?


Eugene Whelan: Our opportunities are second to none in the world.


An hon. Member:: Our government?


Eugene Whelan: I hear some noises opposite. I have a brother out in Saskatchewan. People talk about unity. Some wish that we could all be like Alberta. Alberta is a great "unifying" province which is piling up billions of dollars. I am sure we will get Peter to share that. I hope the former mayor of Toronto will get Peter to share his heritage fund with the rest of Canadians. Peter says he is a good Canadian, but $4 billion are being piled up year after year, and that causes some problem in a country which calls itself federal and which has a federal constitution bringing together many provinces.
The politicians of 1930 made a very serious mistake. Do hon. members want me to remind them who those politicians were? They handed over the resources of this country to the provinces. In a certain province people are being told that they will not have any taxes to pay in a few years. That part of the country will still be called Canada. A Canadian on one side of an invisible provincial boundary will have to pay taxes because his province does not have the resources which can be found on the other side. Those resources were certainly not put there by the former premier of Saskatchewan, even though he might like to think he had something to do with their creation. He
October 30, 1978

maintains that he has created everything that is good, or at least his party does, but some people in Canada are saying that there are too many social services in this country. They are saying that we do not control them adequately. They point to people in Japan, West Germany and such countries as that as being great economic masterminds of industry and trade, but both those countries have social services which can be compared with those in Canada. Let us not deny that.
Some people say that this Minister of Agriculture is not very sympathetic with people who are jobless. I am in this House of Commons because I was once in municipal politics, although in not nearly as big a way as some hon. members. However, when I was in municipal politics, I was guided by and had to abide by the same municipal laws. In 1962 the mayor in my area was not opposed at election time because of the federal and provincial grants the Ford Motor Company received. Spending taxpayers' money made it possible for the Ford Motor Company to come to Canada instead of Michigan or Ohio where the same kinds of concessions were being offered. They are in an economic boom and it is not because of a lack of spending.
On a local radio station the other day I heard the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) say that he would not get involved in anything like that. Some hard talking was required in order to get my cabinet colleagues to conclude that we should get involved in things like that, as long as things like that exist in that great country to the south of us. Other economic giants such as Brazil, Japan and West Germany make tremendous concessions and, if we are going to compete in the world market, we will have to do the same.
Someone suggested earlier that perhaps we should not be competitive. Would the hon. member for York-Simcoe, who displays an economic pygmy attitude, rather see us spend money on unemployment insurance? Two thirds of the money put into the construction of the plant, to which I referred, by the federal and Ontario governments, will come back in taxes before the plant turns a wheel. There will also be taxes on steel and other commodities.
The figures I saw while consideration was being given to this matter did not include the tremendous amount of earnings construction people will have. Last night at the airport in Toronto I met someone from the construction industry, and he told me that the industry locally could not supply the Windsor area and that some components will have to come from many other parts of Canada. This development will not benefit only the area I represent but also many other areas of Canada.
I once studied to be a tool and die engineer, but I never completed my studies. Some might wish I had. They might think I would not be here if I had. However, one can hardly find a tool and die shop in my area which can take on any new work before 18 months or two years. They are booked solid. Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The Address-Mr. Whelan AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At one o'clock the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had the floor, and he has ten minutes remaining.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch I was talking about the economy of the country, the future of Canada, unity, etc. I should like to continue for a moment on that.
The recent by-elections were of interest, of course, but I was appalled to hear some of the things said, especially about the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). When I spoke with some of the opposing candidates, I said, "You know what has been said is not true. Why do you not tell them it is not true?" They more or less walked around that question. They did not want to become involved in long debates. It put me in mind of the time of Christ. One of his apostles, Peter, went to Pontius Pilate and said, "What has this man done which is wrong? How has he sinned, this man called Christ?" Pontius Pilate said, "I can find no way he has done any wrong or no way that he has sinned. But they want him, so let him be crucified". I do not propose, as a member of the government, to allow that to happen. I would rather be an honest, defeated politician. Opposition members cannot say that the Prime Minister has done anything wrong at any time.
I have pointed out some of the economic philosophies to which so-called learned people in this country are referring. I have pointed out that they are bad. I was in Washington some weeks ago at a food symposium on nutrition, on feeding the world, food policy and strategy, etc. I have been quoted since then respecting what I said about jobs. At that time I was speaking in the same context as today, about how well we take care of unfortunate people who are unemployed, disabled, retired, and who cannot be in the earning sector of our society. I pointed out similar things as those pointed out by the hon. member for Halifax several months ago when he referred to the good old days being from 1946 on, when social services looked after those people. I said that it was not the same when I worked and earned 55 cents an hour for 80 hours a week, with no unemployment insurance or social benefits. That was the type of comparison which I was making. There is no country in the world which treats those people I am referring to any better than we do in Canada. Great issue was made of that.
Also great issue was made of the fact that I said the breakfast we received was lousy, when I spoke about nutrition. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made great play about that. He went so far as to indicate that we were liable to break off diplomatic relations because of such a statement. Editorial writers from coast to coast also made comments about it. How could they write without being there, knowing what I said and knowing what kind of a symposium it was? I have been associated with these people for years. I was not invited by the American government. I was invited by a group of people, plus a public service broadcasting

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Whelan
system in the United States. They were putting on this program. So, I said that the breakfast was lousy. It was a lousy breakfast. It consisted of poor coffee, an old sticky bun, but the orange juice was not so bad.
At that time we were talking about nutrition. Our medical scientists and our nutritional researchers tell us that the most important meal of the day is breakfast. It is the most nutritional meal, because that is when a person's blood sugar is down and he requires energy to work for the next four or five hours before he eats again. That is what we were talking about at that time, but it was never told. Then I find my fellow members in the House of Commons going to extremes and using this comment again out of context. I thought I should put that on the record.
[DOT] (U12)
We presently have a program in co-operation with the Department of National Health and Welfare which indicates how people should eat properly and nutritiously. I think this is more constructive than making statements that tend to make diplomatic relations impossible, or break relations with the United States, as some people will try to make us believe.
Mr. Bergland, the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, knows probably more about Canada and the Canadian Minister of Agriculture than did any other secretary of agriculture of that country because he lives just a few miles south of the Manitoba border. He has done his shopping in Winnipeg and has gone to that city for hockey entertainment. He has said that he has even listened to the national broadcasting system we have in Canada, so he probably knows quite a bit about Canada. I am not suggesting how factual that may be if he listens to that outfit, but some of it would be factual, especially if he listens to the farm programs about which he talks so admiringly.
We talked also about jobs. It has been said that I am not concerned about jobs, or that this government is not concerned about them. This government is concerned about jobs, and this is supported by some of the programs to which I referred. We have even changed some federal policies to entice industries into Canada rather than having them establish in the United States of America, in upper Michigan across the lake and across the river. These are things I feel very strongly about, and I have fought very hard in support of doing that kind of thing in order that we can compete on the same level as the United States, thereby enticing those industries to come to this country.
The NDP-boy! The leader of that party has a new adviser. I read his background, but I did not read that this new economic adviser had worked for a living doing manual labour. I never read of him risking his finger being cut or crushed in a factory, on an assembly line, or something like that, yet he seems to have all these answers, already. I find that difficult to understand. His leader said we were wrong in doing what we did for Ford. I can tell hon. members that union members in the city of Windsor, whether the employees work in auto plants, supply plants, construction or wherever, have never

been happier in their lives than they are at the present time. Let that be a fact known to hon. members. We do care about the unemployed.
No country in the world has found as many new jobs as have this country and this government, the government for the people. Hon. members continually refer to the fact that we have so many unemployed. Sure, there is a lot of unemployment in Canada and we are not happy about that. However, I think we should be factual and state the honest to goodness truth about what is taking place. In the past seven years we have created more than 2.3 million new jobs in Canada. Some like to make that comparison with West Germany, that economic giant we hear a lot about. Hon. members talk about this great economic trading country with a balance of payments so good, but West Germany during that same period did not create one new job.
What did some of the countries in Europe do? I suggest they imported people from Yugoslavia and other countries, and when their economies worsened they sent them all back home. At one time there were over 600,000 people from other parts of the world working in West Germany, and Germany sent practically all of them back home overnight. Canada is more humane than that.
Our government and our Prime Minister are more humane. People try to talk about him not being humane when trying to put all these things before the public. Those of you who have ever done that know that is false. During an election campaign, when that wild man in Uganda was sending his people out, he announced that he was allowing several thousand of them to come to Canada, and we agreed. Was that inhumane and political? Perhaps it was not political enough. Maybe we should have stopped some of the small-minded people who think Canada belongs to just those of us who are fortunate enough to be here at the present time, allowing nobody else to come here. I do not take that stand, and I do not think anybody who is a real Canadian should take that stand either.
I am sorry the right hon. member for Prince Albert is not in the House. I wish he were here, as he is a great trial lawyer and I am a great admirer of his. On several occasions in this House he has tried to make a point about final payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The farmers in Canada, particularly those in his part of the country, and in Alberta, know darn well that when you are talking about the final payment you mean the final and complete payment the farmers are going to get. They know this refers to the total payment.
If you go through Hansard on the days those attempts were made, and check everything that was put on the record, you will find the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) making statements in recognition of what I am talking about, stating there is going to be so many more millions of dollars, and asking why we were not paying it immediately. The hon. member for Lisgar recognized what I was talking about, and I am sure the right hon. member for Prince Albert also knew full well what I referred to then.
October 30, 1978

When I talk about honesty in politics, these are some of the things I have in mind. I do not mind being told about the bad things, when they exist. If I were to say that this country, with such a fragile constitution, as I said earlier, did not have some problems, that would be untrue, but when we are comparing problems-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does he have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Five minutes.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the deputy speaker down at the other end of the House is telling me exactly how many minutes I should use. I hope you have noticed him. That is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and that is about the only thing he is centered on, as far as that goes.
If we compare the problems of Canada with the problems of any other country, and I do not care which it is, we find ours are minute by comparison. We have talked about the problems in respect of agriculture, for instance. I think I should say a few words about this industry. I will be as quick as I can.
Never in the history of the agricultural industry in Canada have the producers done as well as they have in the last five years, eleven months, so many days and so many hours-since I was appointed Minister of Agriculture! I suggest that humbly, Mr. Speaker. Let me just put a few figures on the record in relation to farm cash receipts for the period from January to July of 1977, and for the same period in 1978.
From January to July, farm cash receipts in respect of crops for 1977 amounted to $2,558 million as compared to $3,003 million for 1978, an increase of some 17 per cent over the same period last year. That is even better than my best economists advised me was possible. Mind you, I never knew an economist who was right, but that is even better than the best economist advised. Cash receipts in respect of livestock have increased 19 per cent in the same period. We have often talked about the livestock industry.
I suggest hon. members opposite should talk to some of their new members in relation to food policy. Those new members have said many things about food policy and what that party is going to do in relation to food strategy to lower food prices. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) has said he is going to make tremendous changes in respect of the dairy industry. I suggest to hon. members that before they follow that path they should check to see what the European community is doing. It is studying Canadian dairy policy and is adopting some of the same policies we are following. Australia is doing the same thing regarding its dairy industry. It is following Canadian policies.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), but I think it should be pointed out that he did not touch on the subject of agriculture during the course of his speech. He is
The Address-Mr. Whelan
now beginning to do so as a result of the generosity of members in this House who have agreed to allow him extra time. Notwithstanding the fact that he has made an eloquent speech here today, to which we have listened with attention, during which he talked about his leader, national unity, and the economy, he did not refer to that subject for which in this government he has responsibility to the House and the country. He is now trying to bootleg in an agricultural speech on borrowed time, and I think that is unfair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would suggest to the hon. member that on many occasions while sitting here I have observed hon. members wandering from the subject at hand, yet the Chair has been pretty lenient. I suggest we listen to the hon. minister.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I was here the other day when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was talking, and we let him talk as long as he wanted. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is saying that I have no right to talk about anything else. My constituency is 90 per cent urban, and these people depend on the agricultural industry, as does the agricultural industry depend on the commercial and manufacturing industries. They are interdependent. The House has given me the authority to continue on, and I do not intend to abuse that rule any more than anybody else. The hon. member is surmising and placing innuendo on what I am attempting to do. Can the hon. member foresee the future?


John George Diefenbaker: Just the other day, I was stopped.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. gentleman was not stopped while I was here.
On going over some figures, Ontario is up 16 per cent in agricultural income; Saskatchewan, 14 per cent; Quebec, 15 per cent; Manitoba, 23 per cent; B.C., 8 per cent; Nova Scotia, 6 per cent; New Brunswick, 2 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 4 per cent, and Alberta is up 3 per cent. These figures are just for part of the year; the final sales have not taken place. We are merely making a comparison with the year before.
There is not a government in the world that has put in better programs for agriculture, or a country that has more productive people than we do in Canada. In the last few years, in this span I just humbly talked about earlier, the farmers in Canada have produced $2,000 per capita more in produce than the farmers in the United States. We hear so much about the great food machine in the United States of America, but we have the best farmers, and at the present time we have more younger farmers than we have ever had since 1962, actively engaged in agriculture. The ratio of young farmers entering and staying in agriculture is the highest it has ever been for nearly 20 years.
When the hon. member talks about bootlegging, I hope he is not suggesting for one instant with respect to the total economy of this country, especially agriculture which provides approximately 25 per cent of the jobs in Canada, that the

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. D. Munro
person in the auto plant, the brewery or the city worker in Toronto or Windsor, is not concerned about dairy farming. This is one of the things that we talked about, unity. Unity is needed in the areas such as I have mentioned also, and if the hon. member is suggesting that it should not be allowed to take place, I am appalled at this man for whom I hold such high respect.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are on borrowed time.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is talking through his hat.


Eugene Whelan: I am really shook up at what he is saying at the present time about me being, to use his terminology, bootlegged.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think the minister is in for a shuffle, right out of the cabinet.


Eugene Whelan: The agricultural record is so good and speaks so well for itself that I will say no more. I appreciate the extension of time.


Donald W. Munro: My first words this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, are to congratulate those new members who have taken their seats among us, particularly the one who came in today. May the example of what we are doing today not put him off entirely, particularly the speech to which he has just listened.
Before embarking on the theme I have in mind for the throne speech, I want to compliment the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), who unfortunately is not with us this afternoon, and the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) for the fairly credible job they did, under very difficult circumstances, in their spirited defence of the government to which they belong. It is not an easy task at any time, but they defended it well.
I also want to comment briefly on the despicable performance of government members on Friday when they rose ostensibly to discuss an important bill extending supplementary benefits to pensioners. Instead, they used the occasion to perpetrate inaccuracies, misleading statements and innuendoes about the party to which I have the honour to belong. Nothing is more unworthy of a member of this House than to attribute such thoughts or motives to fellow members. We are said to be "lacking in compassion", "heartless", "uncaring" about those unfortunate souls who find themselves alone, uncared for, and without family in their old age. Those comments are unworthy of those who voiced them in this House.
I hope that I managed to correct some of those abuses of the freedom of speech in this House in the comments I made on that occasion. I can think of no one in this House who fits the description which was attributed to this party. We are all here because we care about our country and our fellow Canadians. At least I hope so; why we should be here otherwise, I cannot imagine. I think a few gentle words of reproof are required to be directed at this stage to those who indulged in those tactics
(Mr. Whelan.]
on Friday. I deeply deplore their antics, and I hope that they will not be repeated.
The throne speech debate is an opportunity to become involved in a debate touching on matters that may or may not stem from the throne speech itself, matters of general concern to Canada. I propose to do that this afternoon. On October 19 I attempted to elicit from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the policy of this government with respect to fisheries, because there has developed within his government a deep conflict between two departments involving a jurisdiction over fisheries. I tried again today, without success, and was put off with the comment that it was a silly question and not calculated to help matters at all.
The two departments are the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I propose to examine this matter because it is one with wide implications, much wider I think than perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) is aware. The matter has not been fully explored, and I think that it ought to be brought out in the open. I would like to go back to the origin of this conflict. I cannot make out the date exactly, but it was in November or December of last year. At that time an Indian band in British Columbia passed a bylaw covering fishing within the reserve, an act which is their custom and within their rights. They claimed sole jurisdiction over the management of the fish within their reserve.
I understand that bylaws passed by Indian bands are all submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is empowered to examine them and either to allow them to stand or to disallow them. I quote from Section 81 of the Indian Act:
The council of a band may make bylaws not inconsistent with this act or with any regulation made by the Governor in Council or the Minister, for any or all of the following purposes, namely:
(o) the preservation, protection and management of fur-bearing animals, fish
and other game on the reserve;
This section says that it is quite within the band's jurisdiction to make these laws.
Section 82 of the Indian Act requires that these bylaws be submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs, and by some process-and I am not quite sure what it is; I have been trying to determine that-either by explicit act or by default, that is, by taking no action whatever-these bylaws can be approved or disallowed. I imagine the disallowance would have to be done by explicit act. Permission to go through might have to be done by explicit act, or it could be done just by indifference or default on the part of the minister. The minister is nodding his head, so I gather that if no specific action is taken in his department that bylaw becomes law within the reserve. So far, so good, but I should hope that all these bylaws are examined carefully by personnel in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I find it more than strange that a bylaw with such wide implications should pass around that department without some of those implications having been detected and the minister alerted. One is therefore prompted to conclude that the minister was alerted.
October 30,1978

There was one other minister who was not alerted, however, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). It seems to me, therefore, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development deliberately kept from a colleague in cabinet the fact that this bylaw was going to become the law of the land. I should have thought that cabinet solidarity involved co-operation and that when a matter which happens to fall within the jurisdiction of one minister touched upon the jurisdiction of another, it would be brought to his attention. I should have thought there would have been consultation, but we have it on fairly good authority that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment was unaware of it during the 40 days that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had to allow or disallow the particular bylaw.
There is another minister involved in this who, I suspect, was not notified. Maybe he was, but we do not know for sure and have not had a chance to question him about it. It is not clear whether this bylaw refers just to fishing or to hunting as as whole. It may very well apply to hunting within the reserve, and then we get into the problem of whether it is hunting in or out of season, and whether it is hunting migratory birds for the needs of the native bands. That is perfectly in order and is within the terms of the treaties.
The Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) has jurisdiction over the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the implications of which are international. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development apparently took it upon himself, or else his advisers did not warn him-I do not know which-to refrain from telling the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment about something that affected his ministry, and also to refrain from telling the Minister of State (Environment) about some of the implications that might fall within his area of jurisdiction.
About three weeks ago in the House, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) elicited from the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment the admission that somebody had "goofed"-and goofed was the word used. It is in Hansard for all to see. We have reason to suspect that that was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or one of his colleagues, and I should very much like to know who it was. If it was the minister, then he has not fulfilled his cabinet responsibility and notified his colleagues; if it was one of his officials, I think a reprimand is in order, or even some sort of penalty, for failing to fulfil his responsibilities.
When it became apparent to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment that this bylaw had passed its 40-day existence as a temporary bylaw and then became law, we have, in default of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment who had a few things to say about it.
Does this bylaw refer only to meeting the need of the reserves through which the Squamish, the Capilano and the Seymour pass? Is it just for the needs of Indians on those particular reserves, or is it to fulfil the commercial wants of
The Address-Mr. D. Munro
the Indians? The Province of Vancouver for Friday, July 14, 1978, refers to a federal fisheries officer for the Squamish area as follows:
Last year, he said, Squamish band members took 20,000 to 30,000 fish from the Squamish River with an average weight of 13 pounds (260,000 to 390,000 pounds).
That is a lot of fish, Mr. Speaker, and is what led the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment to wonder whether, with the price of fish what it is, the temptations to overfish and sell the catch might prove to be too much. If this were to happen it would be a disaster for the fishery. There is a temptation to fish beyond one's needs, which are met under the treaty rights, and to go into the commercial field. The minister has not made it clear whether he believed that Indians have the right to fish commercially and unlicensed, within their reserves.
The former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Fisheries and the Environment may find himself in a conflict of interest. In July, 1978, he was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and he is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Anderson), so he really has his problems. If the three ministers have problems, then I think this parliamentary secretary has some as well. The parliamentary secretary is quoted in the same newspaper article as saying:
'I am sure you are aware that we already have problems with some band areas where hundreds of pounds of salmon are caught for native food but are actually sold in B.C. and also exported out of the province.'
I think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development owes this House and the Canadian people an explanation of why he disallowed bylaw No. 10, thereby bringing the problem to a head. Was he just trying to enlarge his particular empire at the expense of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and at the expense of the Minister of State (Environment), or did he do it in ignorance? I think this is an important matter and we should know exactly where he stands on it. For several days now I have been trying to secure this from the minister, the Prime Minister, or somebody on the other side, and it was only today I was able to be recognized for the second time. I was not really satisfied with the way my question was answered. In fact I was told it was kind of a silly observation. I feel than when one gets a reply of that sort one ought to have the opportunity to rebut the minister. I propose to do so at ten o'clock one of these evenings to find out why the minister considered it to be silly, because what has happened here is very important.
I believe there is on the drawing board a bill to separate the ministries of fisheries and environment, carrying over to the Minister of the Environment those affairs undoubtedly environmental. There is one other matter, the administration of the Migratory Bird Convention Act. Just before I rose to my feet I went across to the other side to make sure that this was one of the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment. But there he is caught too, because if the Minister of Indian

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. D. Munro
Affairs were to extend this particular jurisdiction, as is proposed I understand in revisions to the Indian Act, into the hunting field, then he would run afoul of the international commitments. That, of course, brings in a fourth minister.
Talk about putting a falcon amongst the pigeons or a "Faulkner" amongst the pigeons. Maybe that is where it is. He has really done it.


An hon. Member:: Put the pigeons amongst the "Faulkners".


Donald W. Munro: He has run afoul of the fowl. We are in real trouble, in any event.


An hon. Member:: Where is the "Faulkner" when we need him now?


Donald W. Munro: He is the peripatetic minister; he is never around when I want to ask him a question.
However, there has been circulating quite widely in Canada, and it came to my attention when I was in British Columbia recently, a document which is said to be a cabinet document making certain recommendations concerning revisions to the Indian Act. To quote from this document it says:
The following proposals for a revised Indian Act revolve around two basic themes-
And one of these themes in the document is that the band should have:
powers and jurisdiction over the on-reserve management and utilization of fish and game
That does not say whether it is just for their own use, which is a treaty right which allows no exception and is perfectly in order, or whether it goes on for commercial purposes. The way that this was to be done was to revise section 88 of the Indian Act. Here we run across a fifth minister. Section 88 provides that the Indians are subject to provincial legislation, but the revisions are intended to provide that the Indians on the reserve should be subject to federal legislation as well, unless parliament expressly provides otherwise. So there is a real hodgepodge here. We are moving over into the field of federal-provincial relations. We now have the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) involved. That is now five ministers that this apparently innocuous act of the Minister of Indian Affairs involved. I am surprised at all this but I suppose they have to put up a brave face.
The ministers concerned show little concern about the implications of what they are doing. There is the Minister of Fisheries, some of whose management jurisdiction has been taken away; then the Minister of the Environment, because some of his juridiction will be taken away, and, by implication, that brings in the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) because of the international tangents, and finally the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations because of the proposed amendments to section 88.
From this memoradum I referred to before, let me quote the following:
Where treaties are silent about government regulation-

That is, treaties with the Indian Tribes. The article continues:
Such laws would appear not to apply to the Indian people entitled to the benefits of these treaties. Accordingly the Migratory Birds Convention Act would not apply to them and Canada would effectively be in breach of international convention-
This is a memorandum by the public servants to their minister about proposals that they are making to put Canada in breach of international conventions. I do not know what has happened to public servants when they come forward with this notion.
This memorandum goes on to say:
While the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the federal Fisheries Act are federal legislation, they deal with areas which the provinces consider to be otherwise within their jurisdiction in the sense that they form part of the natural resources of the province.
As I say, that is how this problem has overflowed into the area of federal-provincial relations.
I suspect there is one further area which is beyond the powers of this legislature in that these matters may come before the courts to be resolved. The memorandum states that: The courts have not settled the question of the full effect of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements on the prairie treaties.
Are the resources that were affected by the transfer agreements superseded by the treaties or do the treaties take over from there?
The memorandum goes on to say:
It is proposed that the revised Indian Act provide clear authority to Bands to make bylaws concerning the management and use of fish and game resources within the boundaries of reserves and clear powers to enforce such bylaws.
There is surely a ground for compromise here which was not envisaged and which ought to be envisaged. The treaty commitments have to be honoured. There is no question about that, but to accord even within the reserves over-all, complete, entire and unique jurisdiction in those areas that are of federal or provincial concern is merely to cause greater problems than we already have, when goodness knows we have enough problems without this one.
The suggestion is made in the memorandum that there might be Indian participation on local game advisory boards. That is fine. Perhaps that would be a better way of doing it so that there might be Indian participation on the advisory boards and the band members might become game enforcement officers on the reserves. Sure, why not? But to extend this, what is called a right, to the Indians, and then to suggest that having done so it might be possible to encourage them to enter agreements either with the province with respect to game or with the federal authorities with respect to fish is, I am sure, asking a bit too much.
I would suggest that the Indian Act as it now stands does have within it, in section 60 and section 73, the power to resolve this matter. As is usual, the resolution suggesting positive steps comes from this side of the House. Do not be surprised if within the next month or so this dispute has been resolved. Full credit will be taken by the ministers concerned. However, let it be noted that here today I mention that
October 30, 1978

sections 60 and 73 contain within them a germ of a solution to this problem.
Section 60( 1) reads as follows:
The governor in council may at the request of a band grant to the band the right to exercise such control and management over lands in the reserve-
We have the granting of a right. 1 question the use of the word "right" because section 60(2) reads:
The governor in council may ai any time withdraw from a band a right conferred upon the band under subsection (1).
I wonder if "right" is the correct word to use. Is it not a privilege, authority, or power? The word "right" has gathered around it a sanctity which, once given, is very difficult to withdraw, although it states quite clearly the so-called right may be withdrawn.
We ran into this problem last week when talking about the right to strike in the Post Office. It had been granted by parliament, and withdrawn on that occasion. Therefore I wonder if we are using the right terminology here.
I mentioned that section 73 would facilitate the resolution of this argument. That section reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations for the protection and preservation of fur-bearing animals, fish and other game on reserves;
I think there is groundwork here. Having exposed the dispute, it is obviously there. However, very little is being said about it. When one minister says on the floor of the House that another minister goofed, there is obviously a great problem. I suggest it might he helpful if they got their acts together, we might say. Let them look at their respective acts and see if there is something that can be done. In that sense, and as I seem to have driven the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development out of the chamber completely, I will rest my case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour). I would advise hon. members that this is the hon. member's maiden speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, this is my maiden speech. I wish to begin by thanking all those members who over the past few days have offered me their encouragement and congratulations on my coming to Ottawa. It is comforting to a freshman member to receive this encouragement when in unfamiliar surroundings.
In particular, I thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for his kind comments at the beginning of his speech. I assure him I am not disillusioned by what is happening today. What disillusions me are the effects upon Newfoundland, and on my constituency in particular, of the policies and programs offered by the Liberals and Tories of the past few years.


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


Alphonsus Faour: Before proceeding further, it is absolutely essential that I pay tribute to my predecessor, Senator Jack Marshall. There is tremendous respect for Mr. Marshall in my constituency. I share that respect. I have held him in high esteem for some time. In fact the esteem in which he is held by his former constituents was probably one of the few positive notes I found while on the campaign trail. I have committed myself to my constituents, and now commit myself to use Senator Marshall as a model of representation. He did a magnificent job of bringing his constituents' problems to the attention of this House.
I am here today to bring the message the people of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe are sending to Ottawa by electing me to be their representative. They have spoken very clearly the feeling of many Newfoundlanders, namely, that the provincial Tory government and the federal Liberal government have not responded to their real needs.
We witnessed the situation in Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe during the course of the campaign of Liberal and Tory candidates and parachute helpers from other parts of Canada trying to justify the policies of their parties and the effects they have upon Newfoundland. This could not be done without some ridiculous posturing on their part.
The policies of both parties have, over the past few years, amounted to a serious attack on the fundamental foundations of the province of Newfoundland, the economy of that province, and my constituency in particular which, if it does not have the highest, has one of the highest rates of unemployment in this country.
In recent months the government has announced cutbacks in a number of programs essential to the operation of several industries in Newfoundland, the fishing industry in particular. Later it has relented or taken the sting out of its initial remarks. It is like saying to Newfoundland, "We know you are down, we have decided to kick you twice, but instead we will only kick you once." It is ridiculous to expect Newfoundlanders gratefully to accept this kind of relenting.
The message from Newfoundland in that constituency is that they are fed up with this kind of politics. The message goes further. The personal message I received from many constituents while on the campaign trail is that they cannot expect any different or any better from the two old line parties. The Liberals have shown by their record the priority they place on Newfoundland.
Let us look at what has happened in the last few months. The cutbacks in unemployment insurance are probably the most serious undermining of the economy on the west coast of Newfoundland in recent history. In the fishing industry, it will mean a loss of $18 million to the economy of Newfoundland. Overall, it will mean a loss of approximately $35 million, the lowest figure we have been able to obtain. It is horrendous to take that much out of the economy of a province that is now at rock bottom.
An official from a government department in Newfoundland, who will remain unnamed, said that these cutbacks will

national marketing board which would help not only Newfoundland fishermen but fishermen in all parts of Atlantic Canada and do for fishermen what the Wheat Board has done for farmers in the west. At the same time we recognize there is a distinct need for a short-term stimulus to the economy. This does not seem to be part of the policy policy of the other parties. There are many approaches which could be taken at this moment, for example, labour-intensive public works programs such as the upgrading of the railway and the development of harbours in Corner Brook and Stephenville. Small harbours could be upgraded or constructed throughout the province. These things could be done now; and they would provide an immediate stimulus, but long-term benefits to the economy would follow.
That is the message my constituents sent to Ottawa in electing me. They do not approve of what has been happening. They do not endorse the restraint and cutback mentality we have been hearing about over the past few months.
We in Newfoundland want to be an integral part of Confederation, contributing to its development. We do not want to exist on handouts for the next ten or 20 years. We have hopes of becoming in the future, perhaps, one of the "have" provinces, instead of being one of the six or seven "have-not" provinces. We do not want continuing high unemployment; we want to make a greater contribution to the economy.
We want jobs. We do not want to continue to receive unemployment insurance, which at the moment is a bigger contributor to our economy than the fishery. We want productivity to increase, and we want our people to be employed.
EIow can people have any dignity or pride in themselves as individuals or as a community if they do not have productive work of which they can be proud? This is the kind of thing upon which no positive action has been forthcoming from Ottawa, and I think the people of my riding have delivered a message. The message is that this has to change, hopefully as of now.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, may I change the order of going which is common in these circumstances in the throne speech debate and begin by extending a very genuine and sincere welcome to the House to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have to tell him that it was with considerable pride that I listened to him and also that it struck me, for reasons which will become evident in a few moments, what great progress we have made in Newfoundland in our 30 years since confederation. That period is probably longer than the hon. member's whole lifetime, but let me assure him that 30 years ago it would have been quite unthinkable, I suspect, that a man of his age and talent would have had the opportunity so early in his career to enter the House of Commons in Canada
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
or, indeed, to enter the parliament of our own country as it was at that time. So I extend to the hon. member a very warm welcome. I too, somewhat younger but not quite as young when I came into this House, came in after a by-election, and I know what it is like to find oneself in this rather perplexing place for the first few weeks.
I say to the hon. member, in all sincerity, that if I can be of assistance to him in finding his feet, as it were-although obviously he is doing a very good job of it-he has only to ask, and I will be glad, as a fellow Newfoundlander, to help him in any way I can.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't go too far, Don.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This afternoon I do not propose to comment on the hon. member's remarks except to share his wish that Newfoundland be a more prosperous place, something to which, for better or worse and with results as with no results, hon. members can imagine, I have committed myself for a great number of years, and I will work with the hon. member or any other hon. member of this House toward that end.
It is clear that this chamber is not the focus of public attention this afternoon, it being quite properly on the first ministers' conference, and perhaps it is for that reason, among others, that after all my years in the House I am going to break somewhat with tradition today and do two things which will surprise my colleagues, not only on this side of the House but perhaps on the other side of the House as well.
First, I am going to employ what are euphemistically referred to as extensive notes. The second point is that I do not propose to be, and I hope I will not be, in any sense argumentative in any way, as it were, baiting the opposition. I know that breaks everyone's heart, but there does come a time when, and I think hon. members will understand why, it is useful to say something which has been considered carefully by me, and 1 hope hon. members will take it in the spirit in which it is given because I want to talk today for very special reasons about the issue of national unity.
First, I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of this motion. When some of us speak glibly about the uselessness of this debate, we forget about the opportunity it provides for hon. members to express their views on a wide range of issues, as we have seen this afternoon, and this year's mover and seconder have demonstrated that such views are well worth hearing and heeding.
I have just returned from an extensive visit to southern Africa, and also from discussions with representatives of many countries at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. I am struck by the difference between the way in which we, as Canadians, perceive ourselves, and how we are regarded by virtually all of the peoples of the world. They see us as being among the most fortunate countries on earth and, in truth, we are. A single example will demonstrate.
The amount the throne speech proposes as a tax exemption relating to family allowances per Canadian family, setting aside the family allowances themselves, is more per year than

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
the total annual income of at least 900 million people. Such dramatic figures do not require elaboration.
It is not only in the developing countries that Canada is admired and envied. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) showed in his speech in this debate, Canada ranks among the first three or four countries by any impartial economic, social, or other yardstick which can be applied.


An hon. Member:: Wrong.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: These facts are not in dispute.


An hon. Member:: Wrong.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yet there is no doubt that Canada is a troubled country, and it is too facile and mindless an explanation to say that it is all or even largely a matter of leadership, whether federal or provincial or whether in the private or public sectors. The roots of our problem go deeper and are to be found within ourselves as individual Canadians. The maturity with which we face up to that fact, particularly in this House and particularly in the various elective bodies in this country, will determine the rate of our country's progress and, indeed, whether we have a country at all.
Here in Ottawa today our first ministers are meeting to discuss constitutional questions. These meetings remind me- and here I come to the explanation of what I said a few moments ago-that it was 30 years ago this month that I arrived in Ottawa for the first time and, still a foreigner, reported from the galleries and also participated in the negotiations of the terms under which Newfoundland would become a Canadian province. This weekend as I read over some of the documents relating to the first ministers' conference, I was struck forcibly by the fact that little has changed in 30 years or, I suppose for that matter, in the past 111 years of Canadian history. We are still a country with a tenuous hold on nationhood, and regardless of how much government critics may argue, as they always do, that the throne speech is empty, it highlights the goals which paradoxically have both divided and bound us together for more than a century: economic equality and national unity.
Time will not permit an assessment of all the elements in this intriguing and challenging puzzle. Much has been said already about economic matters, and since we are approaching the thirtieth anniversary of Newfoundland's entry into confederation, I propose to confine myself to some brief and necessarily incomplete references to national unity.
When I came to Ottawa first in 1948 I was convinced that there was no such thing as Canadian unity. I was fresh from a bitter referendum campaign in which it was argued, complete with Union Jacks, that confederation was British union, which prompted the retort, "British union with French Canada". Clearly, monarchist arguments and warnings about having French rammed down our throats are nothing new to me.
In 1948 I watched the whole issue of power sharing debated, not just between Newfoundland and Canada but with all the provinces chiming in for fear Newfoundland might in some

way get a better deal. Today, 30 years later, as we heard in the speech which preceded mine, little has changed; little, that is, except myself. On March 31, 1949, I became a Canadian, against my will. Born a Newfoundlander, I had opposed the union of my small country with Canada. Thus, with my province's entry I was compelled to test the validity of my new, unwanted country's demands on my loyalty and affection. As a result I am now proud to be a Canadian, strongly committed to national unity, and I hope, with the indulgence of hon. members, that what I have learned may be of some value in the present difficult period.
Newfoundland's resistance to union for so long provides further proof that regionalism is and always has been the strongest influence on Canadian development. Canadians are caught in a constant struggle between their intense regional loyalties and concern for Canada as a whole. Where the basis of this struggle is economic, reflecting a desire for material advancement, the motivation is roughly similar in all regions including Quebec. But when the language dimension is added, the essential difference emerges between the aspirations of Quebec and those of the rest of Canada. Even this distinction is an oversimplification. What is involved is French Canadian, not just Quebec alienation. Therefore the challenge is twofold: to lessen regional disparities generally, and, simultaneously and with equal commitment, to pursue all reasonable measures to give French Canadians in all parts of the country a true sense of belonging.
It is naive to assume, as the NDP and some others tend to argue from time to time, that separatism will be swept away on a rising tide of economic growth, or indeed, that the other threats to national unity posed by the many other manifestations of regionalism across the country are amenable to economic solutions alone. The present issue of Quebec separatism is not a lone aberration thrust on us suddenly to disturb the otherwise smooth and predictable flow of national development.
When this crisis passes, as I am sure it will, there are bound to be others in other regions. This is the price of diversity, whatever its compensating benefits. It is part of the perplexing dichotomy of Canada, and particularly of Canadian federalism. Each new wave of discontent prompts separatist rumblings, or at least a call for the drastic overhaul of structural arrangements. Witness, for example, as we all have, the constant references to western alienation and maritime disillusionment.
Canadians display an obvious ambivalence when, although taking a justifiable pride in their accomplishments, they often see these as having come about despite confederation, rather than because of it. Furthermore, their attitude is common to both weak and strong regions. For example, weakness brings claims that confederation perpetuates disparities. Strength breeds the confidence which reduces reliance on the centre. Yet, most of the time most Canadians, including the majority of Francophones, display a keen sense of nationhood and an
October 30, 1978

implicit awareness of the need to maintain the proper equilibrium between national and regional interests through the constant renewal of their commitment to the basic idea of Canada. It is that equilibrium, rather than many of its specific elements that change from time to time, which sustain the precarious balance that is at issue today.
The genius of confederation, I have come to discover, has been its acceptance of the respectability of compromise. Our federalism has been able to accommodate a remarkably wide range of often changing, disparate economic circumstances and interests, while maintaining the rough comparability of essential services required for national cohesion. This ability to employ creative pragmatism must be weighed now against the likely effectiveness of various current proposals for constitutional and structural changes. Central to most of these, as it always has been, and as we are hearing today in the Conference Centre, is the issue of power sharing between the federal government and the provinces. Also, there is a need for clarity on how much diversity in regional standards and practices Canadian federalism can tolerate before it becomes irretrievably fragmented. Both our history and present circumstances make it easy to understand why provincial leaders in both good and bad financial circumstances want more freedom to handle their own affairs.
Two gentlemen in the House right now, for whom I have the greatest respect, are former premiers of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. They will understand what I am talking about. While there is some logic in bringing decision making closer to those affected, this will not of itself remove the basic causes of our most intractable difficulties. It is my sincere conviction that belief that it will is one of the most serious weaknesses in the present Tory case, and indeed in others. The main sources of regional disparity lie elsewhere, and a more localized approach, as practical as it may be superficial, could produce fragmented, contradictory provincial policies. Changes which sharpen regional differences run the risk of diminishing our sense of nationhood still further.
Despite these real concerns, we must be prepared to embrace demonstrably beneficial new approaches, for Canadians and their leaders must feel they have the means to achieve their objectives. This is especially true for language rights and those economic and social opportunities to develop a sense of place and identity which we all desire so strongly, however difficult it is to undertake the task of articulating them with clarity and precision and without generating unfortunate misunderstanding.
The language problem has always been at the centre of the national unity issue. We ought to recognize that and state it factually, baldly and plainly. Even if the many economically motivated demands of regionalism can be met, through a combination of structural changes and what I have called creative pragmatism, millions of Francophones would still feel deprived in the language and cultural sense. Indeed, contrary to the views of hon. members opposite who lay the blame for current unrest at the feet of economic disparity, it has been greater economic security which has brought an upsurge of
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
interest in culturally centred objectives and the desire to identify more closely with origins or roots. Thus, although Francophone federalists and separatists disagree profoundly on means, all are seeking, in their own ways, self-fulfilment in the context of their own language and culture. The same aspirations are stirring noticeably in other parts of Canada, including my own where there has been a veritable renaissance in terms of the awareness of our people for their culture, folk music, tales, history and heritage.
Having rejected the fortress mentality of separatism, federalists must seek these goals within the broader, more diverse Canadian society which is increasingly receptive to accommodation, but still unclear and sometimes frustrated about what needs to be done.
Greater national unity can be achieved through actions in two broad categories. There are more facets to these categories, but I believe these can be stated objectively as being the two routes which can be followed: those flowing from laws and policies, and those reflecting a more understanding and responsive public attitude. Although the two are often mutually reinforcing, the principal opportunities for rapid, decisive movement lie in government action. I am referring to government in the plural. If we are logical in our assessment, we will recognize that much has been accomplished already.
But, the better climate responsible for these moves has been matched by the simultaneous emergence of increased tensions and the election of a separatist government in Quebec. I suggest this paradox is not coincidental, nor does the explanation lie in any faulty implementation of measures such as the Official Languages Act. Undoubtedly there were mistakes. There had to be with such a far reaching policy. They were inescapable. But the heightened reaction which we have witnessed over recent years, and which is so evident today, was the inevitable result of bringing long simmering, highly emotional grievances on both sides into sharper focus. Canadians, including those in my own province, have been obliged to confront a very fundamental issue, and many have been uncomfortable with the assignment. Latent prejudices and concerns were aroused, and fundamental differences were revealed between Anglophones and Francophones in their perception of the objectives of the act, and more broadly, of just what is needed to give Francophones a genuine and permanent sense of belonging.
I want to say something here that I think needs to be said, and needs to be said perhaps by an Anglophone and by one who is a relative newcomer to the Canadian federation. It is too easy to interpret many negative responses as a reflection of Anglophone bigotry and a stubborn determination to resist having French rammed down their throats. Of course, some of this exists, but there are understandable reasons for many Anglophone attitudes and misconceptions. For example, the Anglophone assumption is widespread, certainly in all parts of the country I have visited, and with the many thousands with whom I have spoken over the years, that most French Canadi-

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
ans are already bilingual and, as the saying goes, could speak French if they wished. Anything designed to expand the French language and its usage is not seen as a necessity but as an encroachment, or at best, an unnecessary complication.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, we who are here at the centre of the national government know, or we should know, that most Francophones, particularly in Quebec, speak only French and would have as much difficulty acquiring the second language as do most Anglophones. This, of course, is a basic concern of both language groups. Each fears the growth of bilingualism because of a generally realistic, and I emphasize this "generally realistic", awareness that second language competence is unattainable for most of them and will prove difficult even for their children.
These practical problems may be solvable over time through changes in the educational process but, even then, however, neither Anglophones nor Francophones are likely to want basic changes in the nature of their distinctive societies, their cultures and their lifestyles. This inescapable fact brings us to the heart of the dilemma, something upon which I am sure hon. members have spent many hours trying to figure out, that is, what the central or heart of the problem is-why this country, that I joined so reluctantly and have come to admire so much and want to see together, is being torn in this fashion today.
The inescapable fact is that reasonable people can subscribe to the proposition that there should be no barriers to opportunity in a united Canada. Unrestricted mobility in search of advancement is one of the long recognized advantages of Canadian citizenship. We are, in fact, as the records show, among the most mobile people in the world. But this principle of unlimited access, and this is a key point, runs squarely up against many of our regional characteristics and the desire and necessity to keep two linguistic communities, two distinctive cultures, alive and flourishing within the framework of two official languages.
In this context, therefore, the wish, as we hear it, to keep Quebec for Quebeckers and, inferentially, because the inference is clear, the rest of Canada for English-speaking Canadians, has an attraction for some in both camps because of its apparent simplicity. It is, however, dangerously superficial because it ignores the substantial French and English-speaking minorities whose problems would be seriously aggravated by such an arrangement. It tends also to provide a territorial basis for the two nations concept, incompatible with true federalism.
These then are some of the reasons, I suggest, why the Official Languages Act has been less than universally welcomed by both Anglophones and Francophones.
Francophones have the support of reasonable people for two entirely defensible propositions: Francophones should have full and equal access to employment opportunities in Englishspeaking Canada on the basis of merit; and, where their numbers warrant, they should be provided with services, including education of their families, in the French language. There is not, we all know, universal acceptance of these principles, of course, but Canadians of good will can see both the logic and justice, as well as the necessity for such meas-

ures. But, Mr. Speaker, and again perhaps this is not spoken often enough, and certainly not often enough in this House by those of us who have some responsibilities for leadership, it is equally logical, just, and necessary that Anglophones be aware and have the confidence that within the generally Frenchspeaking community, and particularly in Quebec, these same principles must apply in reverse: that, subject only to competence, Anglophones have equal access with Francophones to all employment and other opportunities; and that services, including education, be available under reasonable circumstances in the English language.
Here, of course, the difference between separatists and federalists emerges quite distinctly. Federalists, generally, accept these and similar principles. Separatists, while sometimes uttering confusing qualifications, clearly do not. But Anglophones are aware-I am aware as other Anglophones are aware, and this too is important-that even some federalist Francophones have expressed sympathy for the objectives of Bill 101, for example, even though disagreeing honestly and strongly with the methods it calls for. Anglophones are, therefore, concerned that their commitment to a free and open Canadian society may not be reciprocated by Francophones because the Francophones need to protect language, culture and identity will cause them, wherever and whenever possible, to wall in their community while resenting and resisting comparable moves by the English-speaking community.
This tendency to insulate is basic to the separatist approach. Federalists on the other hand, say simply, and I say it with them, "Let Quebec be primarily a French-speaking province just as, for example, Ontario or Newfoundland, for that matter, are English-speaking. But, let all the provinces recognize certain rights for their linguistic minorities." Quebec's Bills 22 and 101 go beyond this reasonable proposition and make matters more difficult and controversial by defining French as the sole official language rather than the working or principal language.
It is ironic, I should note parenthetically, that more widespread bilingualism is at best a mixed blessing to those Francophones who take this defensive approach to their goal of protection. English-speaking Canadians, however, must recognize and appreciate their right and determination, of which I have become very aware, to remain a distinct grouping, with their rich heritage and culture intact and assured for the future. The alternative is to accept the inevitable breakup of Canada, not merely through the separation of Quebec, but through the mounting discontent and alienation of the large number of Francophones who live in other parts of Canada for whom Quebec's separation offers no solution whatever.
The potential for misunderstanding, resentment and conflict is most acute where the two linguistic and cultural groups come in frequent and close contact; where the English or French-speaking minority is of very considerable proportions. In such areas and regions it is very much a matter of the two linguistic groups living together, and the utmost in reasonableness and understanding is called for in the search for a fair and permanent accommodation. Such understanding, I suggest to
October 30, 1978

you, cannot ignore the historic English language domination of most key elements of Canadian society, even in Quebec. The intangible effects of this traditional situation are legion, and are responsible for many of today's instinctive and negative reactions on both sides.
The frustrations and, hence, resentments caused by these developments must be recognized and understood. Such reactions are particularly acute in bilingual areas where job security and advancement are seen as being threatened, but everywhere in Canada there is an underlying concern that future economic and other opportunities will be denied those who are not bilingual. It is true, of course, as many bilingual Francophones-and I am sure some of my colleagues here would agree-are quick to point out, that they had to make the effort. But whatever the errors of history, these imperatives, in addition to providing the necessity also provided the opportunity, not only in bilingual communities but in a continent of over 200 million where English predominates. And, of course, although I have stated these concerns from the perspective of Anglophone Canadians, they are no less real for millions of unilingual Francophones.
Clearly, for practical, as well as less defensible reasons, educational systems across Canada have been and generally remain woefully deficient in their ability to teach the second language effectively. We now know also that language training for adults, as sponsored by the Government of Canada and others, cannot, in many cases, produce the desired results even for students whose motivation is strong.
When these practical considerations are linked with the less tangible, but no less real, concerns of Francophones for the preservation of their culture and heritage, the full dimension of the national unity problem is very obvious. In the minds of confirmed separatists many of these goals are mutually exclusive. The task of federalists, members of this House and all who are concerned about a united Canada, is to prove that they are not.
A key tool in this task is education. It has been noted repeatedly, but not always believed by Anglophones, that even today, after the introduction of Bill 101, Quebec still provides more by way of educational guarantees to its English-speaking minority than is provided for French language equivalents in other provinces. Yet, this is the case, and the faster corrective measures are taken, by way of constitutional guarantees and the implementation of new realistic approaches, the faster one of the main and most legitimate sources of Francophone grievance will be removed.
Education, and the greater comprehension and understanding it produces-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. However, he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Address-Mr. Jamieson


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am very grateful to the House, Mr. Speaker, and I assure hon. members that I will not impose on their time unnecessarily.
A key tool to this task is education, and the greater comprehension and understanding it produces is the only alternative to the seige mentality, to the "two nations" concept, and to separatism itself. Those who argue for these alternatives fail to realize in most cases that they would produce, not just one watertight compartment, but two, and this situation might very well lead to still more as other regions, although all in English-speaking Canada, sought to erect their own barriers to protect characteristics or advantages they consider important.
I am seeing signs of that already in my own part of the country. I believe it to be very, very negative in terms of national unity. I hope that I will have the opportunity to persuade people in my province, for example, that this seige mentality, this idea that it is a "we and they" situation is counter to the very thing for which we fought such a bitter referendum 30 years ago.
Canadian federalism-and I know now after 30 years perhaps better than most because of this unique background that I happen to have, which is not of my own doing-is either totally open or eventually it is nothing. The diversity various regions prize can only be assured through a climate of openness and through policies and approaches that encourage and nourish regional attitudes, including language rights, while at the same time exposing them to the test of relevancy and value.
While putting great emphasis on education, we must, of course, continue to take other steps toward greater national unity. Some of considerable importance have their roots in constitutional reform, a subject that will be much discussed in coming months. It is clear from all of the dramatic developments in Canada in recent years that the time for leisurely, piecemeal dialogue on national unity is over. The election of a separatist government in Quebec is not the only reason for the new urgency; in some respects it is not even the most important. Its greatest significance is the much sharper focus it has given to an historic, ever present problem. It would be a major mistake, however, to assume that the defeat of the Parti Quebecois will end the problem. The task of reconciliation and reform pre-dates the Parti Quebecois victory and will remain to be completed after the Parti Quebecois is gone.
Those who maintain that defeating the separatists can be left solely to the people of Quebec are only right in the narrow sense that it is Quebeckers who will vote in the referendum, and the provincial election when it comes. But, while these actions may defeat Quebec separatism as a referendum issue, they will not of themselves save Canada. There is a real danger that the ousting of the Parti Quebecois government will be seen by many Canadians-indeed, it is already being perceived by many Canadians-as the definitive judgment on separatism.
But, even on the narrower issue, all Canadians have an obvious stake in the referendum. That stake is not just the future of Quebec, but the future of Canada. Therefore, in addition to stating unequivocally what is unacceptable to

October 30,1978
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
Canada in the Parti Quebecois referendum proposals, it is essential that the Quebeckers be told by their federal government what the federalist options are, and shown how their legitimate aspirations can be achieved best within the Canadian framework. It is unthinkable that the rest of Canada should stand aloof from such a momentous struggle, and those Quebecers, including some federalists, who see this issue as their concern alone, may be well-meaning, but they are wrong.
The Parliament and Government of Canada represent and speak for all Canadians, including Quebeckers, on national issues and in areas of federal responsibility. Nothing fits these criteria more than the threatened dismemberment of the country. There should be no doubts; separatism is the enemy of all Canadians, and all Canadians must oppose it vigorously.
But while separatism is the most urgent and direct threat to unity, it is not the only one. The comprehensive renewal process should not be distorted or compacted into an effort that is directed primarily at the separatist crisis. Other groups and other regions also have problems and doubts. The larger task is to embrace all of these, to find means whereby we can not only lessen grievances but make the entire federal system more responsive and a better instrument for identifying and carrying out the national will.
And there is a national will, I have discovered, a strong Canadian sense of nationhood. It is something more than the distillation of ten provincial government views, the common denominator achieved through the melding of ten often disparate viewpoints, worked and reworked until a consensus appears. Given the complexity of our times, such exercises in co-operation are important, even though not accorded great weight by Canada's founders, nor its leaders during our first half century. The number of federal-provincial or dominion-provincial conferences were few and far between for the first 50 or 60 years of our history.
These founders wisely created a national government, a Government and Parliament of Canada, to represent and speak for all Canadians, the citizens of one nation. Today, just as it is the responsibility of that government and parliament to fight separatism and provide a counterweight to excessive regionalism, it must also articulate national goals, not merely in economic and materials terms, but in ways that will define more clearly-and I have reason to know this through my present responsibilities-to ourselves and to the world what Canada is and for what it stands. Only through such widely shared understanding, Mr. Speaker, can we strengthen the national will still further and share a common pride in the whole of Canada, while fostering and drawing strength and satisfaction from the positive elements of our remarkable diversity.
In this context, while the provinces may be regarded as the bricks of confederation, the Government and Parliament of Canada provide the mortar that binds them into a solid enduring structure. Thus, while the whole is the sum of its parts-and this we forget at our peril-it also has a shape and

form of its own. To prevent erosion, formal mechanisms are essential; but these alone will not ensure a strong Canada. Canadians cannot rely on them entirely but must also possess the will to continue living together and to continue saying with pride, "I am a Canadian".
We in Newfoundland have never been at all ashamed of wearing our hearts on our sleeves, perhaps because of the Gaelic background of most of us. In any event, one of those difficult adjustments I had to make as a Canadian was to what I used to describe as "good grey Canadianism"-the kind of feeling that it was somehow improper, or at least modestly incorrect, to express pride in our country, to talk out loud about what this nation means to us. I went through a period when I assumed a part of that greyness, but now I am convinced most sincerely that we have to shrug off what one might describe as a kind of uneasiness or discomfort with the rhetoric of nationhood and say what we think of this country.
Against that background let me conclude by saying that I began with a declaration of personal pride in Canada and of my commitment to work for national unity. Having experienced one identity crisis in my life, I have no wish to contemplate another, because, believe me, it was a traumatic experience. Canada, all of it, is now my home, and no man could ask for better. Through the tremendous advantages that have been given to me by Canada, through these opportunities that have been given to me as a member of parliament and as someone who speaks for Canada to the world, I have come to realize that a variety of circumstances, not all of our making, not always something for which we can take any credit, just God's natural goodness, have brought together on our half of the North American continent a unique combination of the ingredients that give us, as Canadians, a better way of life- not better by comparison with other people in other lands, although most are envious of our good fortune, but better in the sense that these scores of elements, from climate to natural wealth, from majestic scenery and vast open spaces to cleaner, more well-ordered cities, and comfortable, relaxed small towns and villages, from our proud beginnings and our native peoples to our present exciting mixture of races and cultures-all of these and so many more have shaped and responded to our special aspirations as a unique people, Canadians, and have contrived, often without our help, to add joy to our lives, rewards for our labours, and boundless hope for our individual and common futures.
I am grateful to the House for giving me this extra time, but sometime in the future, on the thirtieth anniversary of some other provinces' entry, if there are more, or when people are looking over it, I want to have on record what I thought about this country after 30 years as a Canadian.
Truly I believe we are the most fortunate country on earth. I have no doubt we will keep it that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) for the passion he
October 30, 1978

put into his remarks, a passion which I am sure stems from the fact that he recognizes the many serious problems facing this country are a direct result of the actions of the government of which he is a member. I want to say that a subject about which I feel equally passionate is scientific research. I have spoken about this a number of times in this chamber, but I am sorry to say that on all of those occasions the suggestions I have put forward have fallen on deaf ears on the government side.
To try to explain the situation a little more clearly or simply, I have to revert to a segment of my life which happened long ago. You may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things I retired from to come to this place was farming. I am a retired farmer, so in talking about research in Canada I want to make reference to the farm where I used to live.
As you know, there are a number of animals and birds on farms-horses, cattle, sheep-such as those on the other side of this House. The bird I wanted to deal with particularly is the goose. Everyone knows that the goose lays eggs and that these are a useful commodity. Everybody knows, too, that a goose egg is the symbol for something not very valuable, or perhaps that even represents failure. That is only the case if it is a normal goose egg, of course, but if it happens to be a golden egg, that changes the picture.
I want to spend some time talking about the golden egg. The farmers to whom I am referring, namely, the people of Canada, are fortunate because the goose they own happens to lay golden eggs. That goose is the medical and scientific research community of this country.
We know that in order for a goose to produce, it must have certain things. It requires nourishment-by way of corn, perhaps; it requires shelter-a place to build its nest where it can lay the golden eggs; and it requires some water and some general care. If care is given to the goose it will produce golden eggs every day, every week, every month, and perhaps every year.
That is not to say that a goose is the only animal or bird on a farm. We recognize that there are other animals that need to be fed some of the same corn that the goose needs. It is a question of deciding in times of restraint which should be fed the most or the least.
As I recollect, if there were pet cats or dogs they were generally considered by the farmer to be non-productive and perhaps were even sacrificed during times of restraint or lack of food. Unfortunately, the government we have, has chosen to starve the goose which lays the golden egg, and has chosen to feed greater and greater shares to the pet cats and dogs.
Canada, in common with other developed nations, largely depends on science and technology to maintain and develop its standard of living. Unlike governments in other industrialized countries, the Government of Canada has for the last ten years shown a total lack of concern for the need to develop an adequate fund of scientific and technical knowledge or scientifically and technically educated people. In essence, the Gov-
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
ernment of Canada has been satisfied to base our standard of living on depleting natural resources and on using the scientific, and technical knowledge and efforts of other countries.
When the government has spent money, it is clear the spending has not been done in anything that resembles an optimum fashion. Rather than asserting strong leadership by committing itself to support research and development, rather than striving to create a science and technology infrastructure that could provide the critical underpinning for industrial and socioeconomic programs, the government has discouraged innovation. It has discouraged hard work; it has discouraged productivity. Instead, the government has chosen to spend the taxpayers' money on creating a huge unwieldy and largely inefficient bureaucracy. Surely this direction is not the road to economic progress.
Few Canadians would pretend that it is easy to establish a comprehensive, scientific and industrial strategy. But unlike those who sit on the other side of the House, we in the Progressive Conservative party will not be dissuaded by issues bearing on ease of accomplishment. We reject categorically any short-term politically-expedient answers to our problems stemming from deindustrialization and scientific-technological insufficiency. We do this in the certain belief that Canada needs to grow and create new wealth. In other words, we need to have new golden eggs, to put it in simple language for the other side, for the benefit of all Canadians in every province. We do this because we recognize that the principle element of any national growth strategy is already visible. Canada, like all other successful western industrialized countries, must emphasize research and development and high technology if it is to compete successfully in the world.
The Progressive Conservative party believes the future of Canada is at least as important as the present. We must look to the future by working diligently to solve the many problems that exist today. The cornerstones of Canada's thrust toward a healthy science base should be similar to those of any other high priority national effort. A science strategy, like an industrial strategy or cultural strategy, will need to be based on existing strengths and needs of our country, on coherence and relevance, and on co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, industry, business, universities, and the lay community.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a scientific industrial strategy must be based on continuity and stability since progress in science is utterly dependent on the continuing infusion of ambitious, productive and creative new talent. So to state it again in simple terminology, the golden goose indeed does have the capability of reproducing, or at least to regenerate some of its lost parts. In other words, if one plucks a feather, the goose can grow a new one. So it is not too late to correct the wrongs of government shortsightedness.
For the benefit of those Liberal members who for so long neglected science and technology, I would like to point out that Canadians, in spite of the government's negligence, have demonstrated excellence in both basic and applied research in many fields and disciplines. In the area with which I am most
606

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
familiar, biomedical research, the list of Canadian research accomplishments is both long and impressive. This is the list of golden eggs that I want to put on the record. For example, Dr. Sourkes of Montreal and Dr. McGeer of Vancouver jointly elucidated the cause of Parkinson's disease, a condition which causes uncontrollable shakiness in certain individuals; Dr. Robinson of Vancouver has developed a method for controlling rheumatoid diseases; Dr. Noble, also of Vancouver, has discovered an important group of anti-cancer drugs; Dr. Nickerson, also of Vancouver, has developed drugs used in the treatment of high blood pressure.
Dr. Merrimam of Saskatoon has demonstrated the relationship between grain dust and chest disease and has also pioneered work on the role of exercise in coronary heart disease; Dr. Kirkaldy-Willis' work in Saskatoon has improved methods of managing low back pain; Dr. Harold Johns, formerly of Saskatoon and now working at the Ontario Cancer Institute in Toronto, discovered and developed a Cobalt 60 unit for radiation treatment of cancer; Drs. Gold and Freedman of Montreal developed an extremely important diagnostic test for bowel cancer; Drs. Horlick and Sodhi of Saskatoon-there are a lot of good scientists in Saskatoon, some good politicians, and some bad ones too-clarified the role of high fat levels in atheroschlerosis and their control with drugs; Dr. Chang of Toronto developed a purification cartridge for portable artificial kidney machines; Dr. Bruce, also of Toronto, developed the rationale for combination cancer therapy.
This listing of major accomplishments by Canadian biomedical researchers is by no means all-inclusive. It does, nonetheless, clearly indicate that in addition to the highly publicized achievements of people like Wilder Penfield, Hans Selye. J. B. Collip, D. H. Copp, Fredrick Banting and Charles Best, this country has many other scientists of first-class international standing.
Canada does not lack scientific talent; rather, it lacks a science policy which would allow researchers to contribute to improving the health and well-being of Canada and the economy of the nation. The government that we are faced with today in this chamber deals with health research as if it were an expensive charitable budgetary outflow. The fact is that health research expenditures by the federal government constitute less than 0.2 per cent of the total budget, and less than 1 per cent of the Department of National Health and Welfare budget. Furthermore, there is now ample documentation that funds spent on health research are a prudent investment for reducing health care costs in the future. They are not a charitable expense without any tangible fiscal benefits.
You may be asking, Mr. Speaker, what that means, and perhaps even members on the other side might be curious about how much one of these golden eggs is worth. It might even be thought "Who cares about golden eggs? They be worth nothing." However, I can assure hon. members that the value of gold is very high these days, and I would like to give an indication of what these golden eggs are worth. For example, Dr. Bob Hickie of the University of Saskatchewan has recently completed a study which shows that for every dollar

invested in health research, the minimum return within ten years by way of permanently reduced health care costs is at least $20.
The total research cost for developing poliomyelitis vaccine was $41 million. The estimated saving to Canada since that time has been about $200 million per year since 1955. Just consider that saving, for a small investment. The saving due to this discovery alone more than pays for all the health research done in Canada since that year.
Measles immunization has resulted in a saving to Canadians of at least $10 million per year. Treatment of hemophilia saves Canadians $20 million per year in hospitalization costs alone, not to mention the suffering of patients which has been reduced. Basic research into the cause of blindness in premature babies cost $34,000. The annual saving due to the averted blindness is $24,000 for every dollar spent on research.
The discovery of the antibiotic streptomycin used for treatment of tuberculosis has saved Canadians $30 million per year since 1952. Penicillin continues to save more lives each year than were lost during the entire Second World War. Just consider that, for a government which looks on research as a charitable outflow. If typhoid fever were treated today by 1935 standards, the patient would have to be hospitalized for about 50 days at a cost of about $8,500; now the costs include a prescription for chloramphenical at about $5, and one or two days of fever.
The basic research by Canadian scientists into the defect associated with Parkinsonism and its treatment with L-DOPA saves Canadians at least $120 million per year. A diagnostic test for cancer of the bowel, also developed by Canadian scientists, saves Canadian taxpayers about $60 million per year. The total cost of discovering insulin by Drs. Banting and Best was less than $30,000; though not yet documented, the total monetary saving to Canadians since the discovery in 1921 would be staggering.
The lives and livelihood that have been spared by cures and treatments resulting from basic and applied biomedical research during the last 40 years have been estimated by Creditel of Canada Limited to save Canadians $1.7 billion this year. This saving represents nearly 10 per cent of the total budget of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
We believe that the government's expenditures are in general excessively high, and in some areas outright wasteful. As I mentioned, this government can be compared with the farmer who feeds too many cats and other family pets which are not productive. We believe also, however, that spending in the area of research and development should be regarded as a needed investment, not as a loss of federal dollars. It is not a loss or simple expenditure. Federal investment in this area must increase, not decrease, because it is clear that scientific innovation could play an essential role in achieving many of Canada's economic objectives, a strong manufacturing sector with consequent growth of employment opportunities, industrial effectiveness leading to greater price stability and a stronger value
October 30, 1978

for our dollar, positive international trade balance in high-technology manufactured products, good quality cost-effective health care, and a strong, confident, and visionary scientific community.
The government's proposals to cut back further on investment in research and development and the closely related area of post-secondary education are ludicrous. They are tantamount not only to starving the golden goose, but to plucking its feathers and cutting off some of its limbs.
It is truly a quixotic government policy that, on June 1 of this year, proposes to stimulate scientific and technological growth in this country and then, just a few months later, it reneges on the same promises by cutting back on investment.
The proposed cutback in science and technology activities will adversely affect the research performance of most government departments and all Canadian universities. The Department of Agriculture would lose $8.5 million from its science budget; the Department of Environment, $11.7 million; the Department of Fisheries, $11.1 million; and the Department of National Health and Welfare, $10.3 million. The three extramural research granting councils, already desperately short of funds to support scientists and provide equipment and support staff, would lose a total of $3.1 million.
The ramifications of the proposed cut of $0.5 million in the budget of the Medical Research Council and $2 million in the National Health Research and Development program will be much more extensive than simply its effect on the investigators themselves.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) continue to pluck the feathers off the golden goose. Perhaps they will be used for a pillow to make the Prime Minister more comfortable, the pillow being the PMO. There have been no cutbacks in the Prime Minister's office, only in research and other areas. The effect on health care in Canada of this loss of research potential and trained personnel will be particularly severe and will affect the formation and development of cost-effective health care policies. In addition, this loss will affect the training of physicians, other health professionals, research scientists, and will directly affect patient care, as trained personnel leave Canada for other countries which recognize and support scientific research.
These losses will be irreparable. Obviously if you cut the head off the golden goose there will be no more golden eggs. It will be impossible to replace trained staff, and there will be a cessation of valuable research programs which have taken many years to develop. These programs will not be able to be started again on short notice when the fiscal climate becomes more favourable, as it will when a Conservative government takes over, as it takes many years to recruit skilled scientists and to train new staff. There is no doubt that there will be a reluctance among skilled scientists to work in a country which has so clearly shown its lack of interest in and continued commitment to research.
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
One example of a health research program which will be discontinued if these proposed cuts are implemented will serve to illustrate the lack of vision from which this government suffers.
In the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, Dr. Judith Sayed, one of the very few pediatric nutrionists in Canada, and a National Health Scholar, is investigating the nutrition and nutrition-based diseases in Indian and Inuit children in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. A number of previously unsuspected problems have already been found. Rickets, a vitamin deficiency disease, thought to have been abolished in Canada, still exists among children in remote Indian communities. Intolerance to milk due to deficiencies in gastrointestinal motility, is very common among older Indian and Inuit children and may contribute to diarrheal illness. The high incidence of infectious diseases among Indian infants is, in large part, due to a mistaken preference for bottle over breast feeding. As a result of these findings, remedies are already under way to improve the health of native children.
The Medical Research Council is the main source for biomedical research funding in Canada. That body provides most of the corn to feed the golden goose. It provides approximately 50 per cent of the total $130 million currently spent on health research. Under the current administration the growth of the MRC budget, particularly since 1971, has been painfully inadequate. The measure of corn for the goose has been smaller and smaller. The increases during the past eight years have not even kept pace with the cost of living increase, let alone the inflation costs of scientific equipment, materials and reagents which have been increasing by at least 15 per cent per year and at present exceed 20 per cent taking into account the 85 cent Canadian dollar.
In terms of the total budget of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the MRC budget has fallen from 1.33 per cent in 1971-72 to 1.30 per cent in 1972-73, to 1.14 per cent in 1973-74, to 0.87 per cent in 1974-75. Currently, the MRC receives approximately 0.6 per cent of the total budget of Health and Welfare. The ratio has gone down by about two thirds.
On June 1 the government announced it was going to devote 1.5 per cent of its gross domestic product to research funding. It proposed regional "centres of excellence", innovation centres, and changes in government procurement policy to stimulate Canadian research and development. All these things were swept aside only eight weeks later.
That is why there needs to be a change in government. The Prime Minister has decided to eat the goose's corn. Indeed, he is poised to eat the goose itself.
The Conservative party stated on an opposition day not too long ago that we are committed to directing 2.5 per cent of the gross national product toward scientific research, a program to be implemented over five to seven years. We are talking about trebling or quadrupling the measure of corn for the golden
608

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Richardson
goose. Such a measure will at least enable us to catch up with the level of funding practised in the United States and other industrialized western nations.
To sum up, the Liberal government is starving and dismembering the research community. The Prime Minister has not only reduced the amount of corn available to the golden goose, he has plucked its feathers and pulled off one leg for a meal; he is now holding it over the chopping block by the remaining leg. Why, one might ask, is he doing this since it is so obviously the wrong thing to do? Well, perhaps he does not care about the golden goose. Perhaps he just wants to eat the goose. We, as the party of the alternative government, propose to correct this disastrous policy and to restore the research community to a healthy status so that it can continue to carry out the research which is necessary if this country is to be a viable and competitive nation.


Hon. James Richardson (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, for more than two years, since I resigned from the cabinet, I have been warning the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he was leading Canada in the wrong direction, that his policies would do more to divide the nation than to unite it. The fundamental flaw in the policies of the Liberal government is that they emphasize our differences as Canadians instead of emphasizing all that unites us as Canadians.
I have had the opportunity to give this warning on many occasions-here in the House in the debate on the Speech from the Throne a year ago, before the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity this January, and when I crossed the floor of the House in June of this year. Now that we have seen the results of the 15 by-elections on October 16, to see that the Canadian people are trying to tell the Prime Minister and the government that they are going in the wrong direction, that they are doing more to divide the country than to unite it, it is all I can do to resist saying, "1 told you so."
My warning has not been confined to the national unity issue. More than two years ago, when I was writing my letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, I said:
I do not believe the government has fully recognized and utilized for the common good the energies and creativity of Canadian entrepreneurs. The bureaucracy is still too big and government is still interfering too much in the working of the economy.
That was more than two years ago. Now, at last, in the Speech from the Throne the government is talking about, and I quote, "the private sector leading the way towards accelerated growth". The Speech from the Throne goes on to talk about "encouraging a more vigorous expansion of the private sector by reducing the governmet's share of the national wealth."
The words are beginning to sound right, Mr. Speaker. The government has finally learned to say the right thing even though it is not yet clear whether the government really understands its own words and, more particularly, whether it really believes its own words. Only the budget which has been promised for next month will show whether the government's new-found confidence in the private sector is anything more than empty rhetoric. Only the budget will reveal whether the government is capable of understanding how to restore inves-

tor confidence, both Canadian and international investor confidence; because that is the essential first step in revitalizing and strengthening the Canadian economy.
Today, as members of parliament, we find ourselves in an extraordinary situation. We have just read a Speech from the Throne which calls for national unity. It comes from the same government that gave us the constitutional amendment bill, Bill C-60, which is one of the most divisive pieces of legislation ever placed before parliament. For example, it calls for a double majority, a French and an English majority, on matters of linguistic significance in the new, proposed House of Federation. This proposed legislation also calls for two classes of Supreme Court judges. Certain judges will be able to make judgments in relation to the civil code and common law. Others will only be able to make judgments about the common law. Surely two classes of judges cannot be based on a one-nation concept?
Then we find the preamble to the constitution in this new legislation. The preamble spends more time trying to describe our differences as Canadians than in trying to encourage our unity. Legislation of this sort cannot possibly unite Canada. I do not think it is enough for the government to say it will revise the legislation, as promised in the Speech from the Throne. The government is so completely on the wrong track that it will be necessary, as I said in the special committee, to put Bill C-60 into the shredder and start over again with a new concept which could really help achieve a united Canada.
Fortunately for Canada, the democratic process is at work. There is widespread opposition to Bill C-60 and to the government's proposals for constitutional amendment. The premiers unanimously opposed the legislation at their meeting in Regina, and though I have not heard the whole of the proceedings at the conference today it appears they are saying the same things today as they did then. Also, the Senate is opposed to the proposals-and not just to protect itself, as some have wrongly suggested, but for much more fundamental reasons.
Wide sections of the media are opposed, and growing numbers of the public are opposed, so we have all this opposition to the constitutional amendment bill, and it is very clear that the democratic process is working. It has been made clear that the government's proposals for constitutional change are clearly not a reflection of the national will.
Despite this widespread and really overwhelming opposition, the Prime Minister gives ever indication of wanting to lock his vision of Canada into the constitution. He still wants to proceed with his vision of Canada. In the throne speech debate the Prime Minister spoke for more than an hour and a half, but one sentence revealed his thinking better than anything else he said in that long debate. When the Prime Minister was talking about the constitution giving protection to his concept of language equality, hon. members who were here on October 12 will recall that he said that it was not really vital to him whether the Supreme Court had nine judges or 11 judges. He said it was not really vital to him whether the House of the
October 30, 1978

Federation was directly elected or elected by the political parties.
The all-important sentence in his whole speech can be found at page 37 of Hansard for October 12, 1978. The Prime Minister said:
It is vital to me that it-
He was referring to the constitution: "that the constitution":
-does give protection to the kind of linguistic equality that this government has put into the statutes.
What does the Prime Minister mean by "give protection"? Clearly, he means that he wants to give protection from parliament. He wants to protect his legislation from any amendment by future parliament. He wants to place his legislation beyond the reach of parliament. Recently I read an article by a newspaper columnist who said that the Prime Minister is prepared to give up power and to give up authority. This columnist was right in this way: The Prime Minister is prepared to give up power and authority, but he is not prepared to give up his power and his authority. What he is prepared to do is give up the authority and the power of his successors to change what he has done.
The Prime Minister obviously does not believe in the supremacy of parliament: he believes in the supremacy of a written constitution.
As recently as this morning when he was opening the federal-provincial constitutional conference, the Prime Minister said, "We want a Canada in which we are all bound by one law," the law of the constitution. I do not believe that Canadians want to be bound by anything, and certainly not by a Trudeau-written constitution. I think members of parliament should be warned by the sentence I have read from the Prime Minister's speech and they should be ready to defend the supremacy of parliament over the supremacy of a written constitution.
I receive thousands of letters from Canadians on this subject, and the people of Canada do not want the supremacy of a Trudeau-written constitution to replace the supremacy of a democratically elected parliament.
The Speech from the Throne talks about good will and about flexibility on all sides. I believe the trouble is that the government wants flexibility from everyone but does not want to be flexible itself. One example of inflexibility over the years has been the Prime Minister has insisted on an amending procedure which gives a single province the power of veto.
I know that today there is some general talk about looking at other forms of amending procedure, but ever since 1968 the Prime Minister, in his letters to provincial premiers and in other ways, has never varied from the Victoria formula, which called for a perpetual veto for Ontario and a perpetual veto for Quebec. We do not have to draw pictures to explain that when we are dealing with linguistic matters a perpetual veto for Quebec has more significance than a veto for other provinces. We should be aware that there is no federal state in the world which gives to one of its constituent parts, that is, a province, a state or a canton, the same right to approve or disapprove amendments to the constitution that belong to the nation itself,
The Address-Mr. Richardson
and yet that is what the Prime Minister is proposing. He is proposing a single province veto.
I have made several proposals for amending procedures of the kinds used in other countries. I have proposed referenda and a two-thirds majority of an upper house. There are several possibilities. What they all have in common is that they would be a reflection of the national will. I think it is vital that we amend our constitution with a consensus of the people of Canada as a whole and not that we find ourselves placed under the veto of a single province.
The last thing I want to say regarding amendment of the constitution is something which has been mentioned by others, but it is so important that it requires emphasis and repetition. This government does not have a mandate to make fundamental constitutional changes. I remember the 1974 election, as other hon. members do, but there was no discussion of the constitution in those days. We talked about wage and price controls and about other matters. We discussed the constitution in earlier years, so we cannot say that it is just because of the Quebec election of November, 1976, that we are now discussing the constitution. We discussed the constitution before the 1972 election, but not before the 1974 election. If we check the records, I think we will find that there has been very little discussion of the constitution or constitutional amendment, so the government does not have a mandate, particularly in this fifth and dying year of the government, to expect the Canadian people to agree to see fundamental changes in the constitution. That is totally unthinkable.
In passing, it is perhaps worth making the point that we are talking about fundamental change. The Prime Minister likes to use the word "renewal". He talks about renewal of the federation, but I think we should all be aware and be warned that "renewal" is a buzz word. It is a catch word. It is intended to hide the truth. From now on, every time members of parliament and the public read the words "renewal of the federation," I ask them to read "fundamental change " in the federation. Then we will be closer to understanding what the Prime Minister is really trying to do.
Fortunately for Canada, there is an answer to Canadian unity. It is the answer we have always known, and we have lost it only for a little while. Once again it is being presented and articulated by a group of citizens who call themselves Canadians For One Canada. They have set out in clear and precise terms the principles on which they believe Canada can be built as a truly united nation. If the Speech from the Throne had been based upon these principles, today we would be on our way to becoming a truly united nation once again, to being one Canada, instead of being divided and confused by the government's false concepts of duality, diversity, and division.
Canadians For One Canada believe above all in a truly united Canada. These are their firmly held beliefs and principles as contained in their brochure. Their first belief is that Canada is a partnership of all Canadians and not just a partnership of two founding races.

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Richardson
Second, they believe that it should be possible for all Canadians to be united by a common national language and, at the same time, to welcome and respect the French language as an important regional language.
Their third belief is that the serious problem of language difference does not exist in most of Canada, but is essentially a regional problem which can be solved regionally by Frenchspeaking and English-speaking Quebeckers becoming increasingly bilingual. Surely this is the common sense answer which provides Quebec with the best of both worlds and, at the same time, achieves a truly united Canada.
The fourth belief of Canadians For One Canada is that the attempt to entrench nation-wide French-English language equality in the constitution only extends the problem of language difference; it does not solve it. Also they believe that amendments to the Constitution of Canada must not be controlled by the veto of any single province, but must always be a reflection of the national will.
Finally, central to the whole concept is their firmly held conviction that Canada is one country and Canadians are one people. As soon as the beliefs and principles of one Canada are written into a future speech from the throne, Canada will be well on the way to becoming a united nation, a truly united nation, once again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Demers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member allow me a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) accept a question?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.


Yves Demers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a very simple question to the hon. member. Does he accept in essence Bill 101 of the government of Quebec?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that as long as we can leave the difficult problem of language at the level of statutory law, I see no problem. I am referring to Bill 101 at the provincial level and the Official Languages Act at the federal level. Laws made by parliament or by the national assembly, as in the case of Bill 101, can be amended by future generations of Canadians and parliamentarians. I am opposed to taking the principles of the Official Languages Act and locking them into the Constitution of Canada under a rigid amending procedure which, for all practical purposes, prevents amendment. In other words, it is the locking up for the future to which I am really opposed. I do not think a law passed by the House, or by the Quebec National Assembly, is forever a law. It can be amended. Therefore, I see no problem with Bill 101. But one should read carefully what is in Bill C-60 because

it entrenches Bill 101. It is wrong to tie the hands of future generations of Canadians in that manner.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the comments I wish to make this afternoon, I should like to refer to a couple of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson). His concept of Canada is certainly one which will never bring unity or harmony to the country. Where is the equality in having one national language and one regional language? Where is the equality in providing language guarantees to English-speaking Canadians in Quebec only in federal legislation and not entrenched in the constitution? How would language guarantees be provided to Anglophones in Quebec, especially with a government like the Parti Quebecois in power? That government wants to make Quebec a unilingual province.
At the federal level we have been working since 1969, when the Official Languages Act was proclaimed, to make the country officially bilingual. The hon. member was in cabinet for some eight years when that law was passed. I am sure he supported it. His suggestions and ideas would take us back to the 1960s before the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission held its hearings and came up with the principles of the Official Languages Act. It provides for services by the federal government in either official language where there is a significant minority.
If we accept the concept of the hon. member of a unilingual Canada, one official language, how does a French-speaking unilingual person from the province of Quebec travel to western or eastern Canada with the announcements on the aircraft, train or whatever, being in the English language only? The concepts espoused by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers at the constitutional conference in Ottawa today indicate that they are working toward making this country united, whole and one.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) and the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) for their excellent speeches in opening this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne emphasized two things: the matter of the constitution, and the economy of our country. Today we see an outgrowth of that, the heads of government meeting at the Conference Centre in Ottawa to deal with the constitution. We look forward with great anticipation to the success of that conference.
In the matter of the economy, which is really very much on the mind of every member as we reassemble in this final session of this parliament, we see the initiatives which were announced in early August further amplified in the Speech from the Throne; the reduction in government expenditures during the next two fiscal years of $2.5 billion, a move toward seeing the Post Office made into a Crown corporation, a commitment by the government to provide incentives and stimulus to the private sector amounting to some $300 million
October 30, 1978

this coming year, and the re-ordering of our priorities for another $1 billion during this coming year.
It is significant that even though there have been dramatic and very difficult reductions in expenditures of $2.5 billion during this period of time, the government was still able to announce important changes to the kind of social programs we have in this country; aid and assistance for low wage earners, assistance to families with a large number of children, and assistance to our senior citizens, those who do not have other forms of income. We see that, even in the face of very severe cutbacks, our social programs will continue; for instance, the increase in the provision of the family allowance program where, although we will still be providing $20 per month per child, there will be provision for a cheque of $200 per child a year or refundable tax credit available to families earning less than $18,000 and graduating up from there. This will benefit some 2.4 million families, involving at least five million children. At the same time, the guaranteed income supplement will be increased by some $20 starting with the January cheque.
In face of the problems of inflation, an improvement as well was the reduction in excise tax on gasoline of some three cents a gallon, and a move by the government to try to hold down the increase in the crude oil price by $1 a barrel, an increase which would have otherwise gone into effect on January 1.
I must compliment the federal government on being able to equalize the price of crude oil right across the country, with minor variations for transportation costs, because in my constituency one of the very hot issues is the fact that we have such a wide variation, sometimes ten, 12 or 15 cents a gallon, in the retail price of gasoline. This is a responsibility of the provincial government in respect of which it has been reluctant to move to give some uniformity across the province, as the federal government has done in respect of crude oil, which is its responsibility. It seems to me that if the oil companies are unable to give us a more fair and equitable pricing mechanism, the province should move in an attempt to provide some equity in respect of retail gasoline prices, as the federal government has been able to do with crude oil prices.
We have to be careful when we listen to speeches on the motion in respect of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, such as those we hear from opposition benches, that we do not get caught up in all of this gloom and doom they send across the aisle to us, and across the country by way of television and radio.
If we look at many sectors of our economy today we will see some very positive signs. If you look at the merchandise trade figures which were released last Friday you will see that we are heading toward a $4 billion merchandise trade surplus this year, and that is up by some 33 per cent from last year. Naturally the Minister of of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was pleased and delighted with the figures that came out for the month of September. These are not abstract figures which do not fit back into every constituency of the country where we produce resources such as we do in the Algoma-Manitoulin area.
The Address-Mr. Foster
If we look at many of these resource items produced in that area we will see some positive and dramatic changes in the price and demand for those products. If we look at beef production, cow-calf operations, we will see prices this year up by some 75 per cent to 100 per cent over last year. At the annual sales in Thessalon and Little Current we saw a top price for 1977 of $51 per hundredweight for some 72 steer calves. This year at the fall sale in late September the price was $90.50 per hundredweight for some 60 steer calves. This is a very dramatic increase in the price of calves, following a period of some four years during which the producers of these calves suffered from extremely low prices, due in large part to the opportunities which exist for trade and sales to the United States as a result of the reduction in the value of the dollar. If this kind of price for the cow-calf operator can be maintained for the next several years, and there seems to be every indication this will happen, we will see a much more stable and positive industry there, one which has suffered very severely during the last few years. However, in respect of this year we observed the best price since 1974.
If we look at another sector of the resource industry, at lumber, for instance, we will see that we have had one of the strongest markets for lumber this year that we have experienced in many, many years. The demand is strong and prices are very high, certainly higher by at least $100 a thousand for two by fours and lumber products from many areas of northern Ontario than we have seen during the last 18 months. This industry is penetrating into markets in mid-western and eastern United States, and this is helping to push forward these high merchandise trade figures the Minister of Finance announced last week. The same situation exists in respect of newsprint and paper, so we are seeing a forest products industry in Canada that is in one of the strongest positions it has been in for many years.
In this connection I was pleased with the decision of the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) with regard to the Petawawa Forest Research Laboratory. I know the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) has made tremendous representations in this regard. Many of us concerned with the forest products industry have, as well, made strong representations regarding the continuation of this research centre. The minister saw the wisdom of these arguments, and I understand that in fact the research centre will actually be increased in staff. I am pleased in this regard because it plays a vital and important role in the forest industry in Ontario, in the country and, in fact, in the world. This is important at this time because the Ontario government is changing over to having much of the reforestation, planting of seedlings, carried out by private companies in the pulp and paper industry. This kind of forest research will be very important in ensuring that this industry remains alive, well, and able to reach the full potential that our resources promise.
If we look at another sector of the resource industry, the uranium mining industry, putting aside the gloom and doom we hear from the other side of the aisle, we will see one of the strongest circumstances there in terms of trade opportunities

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Foster
and expansion we have been able to visualize since 1958-59 when that industry was at its peak. In the Elliot Lake area of my constituency, for instance, there are two mining companies, Denison and Rio Algoma, expanding at a record rate, hiring literally hundreds of miners each year.
If we look at the difficulties in some other areas of the country and at our generally high unemployment figures throughout the country, we see that there is opportunity for young people and people interested in becoming miners. During the next six years it is expected that each of these companies will hire some 400 miners. We will see a community which today has some 15,000 people expanding to some
42.000	people. This is important in terms of jobs and economic development in that community, and it is important to our country as well. We are talking about literally billions of dollars in foreign exchange and in trade. This will offset our expenditures for oil and merchandise items which are imported into this country.
Canada has the uranium to sell, and the government has a policy to ensure that our needs will be met. One policy is that every reactor which is put on line must have a 40-year supply of uranium. At the same time we will be able to take advantage of the trade opportunities this important mineral will supply, and perhaps meet the energy needs of our trading partners, West Germany, Great Britain, Japan, United States, etc. It is therefore important that this mineral is further upgraded to its highest potential, and that is why it is government policy that the uranium to be exported from Canada is exported as uranium hexafluoride, a highly refined state.
There are hearings going on this fall with regard to the location of a new uranium refinery in the province of Ontario. It is my hope that it will be located in northern Ontario in the north shore area, and we in that area are trying to put forward a very positive case to have it located there. Last Saturday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) visited Blind River to apprise himself of the advantages of locating the uranium refinery there. If such a thing occurs, it will provide some 240 permanent jobs, millions of dollars in assessment and capital investment in the community and will meet our desire there to further upgrade and process our natural uranium ore.
The greatest need in the rapidly expanding community of Elliot Lake right now is the need for housing. Each year there is a need for literally hundreds of new houses. Elliot Lake will grow from a population of 15,000 today to over 40,000 people in the next six or seven years. A whole new town will be developed during those years which will accommodate some
20.000	people. The existing property lots are being planned and developed at the present time. Surely, CMHC and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will have a part to play in this expanded community, especially in providing houses for people in the service sector. The mining companies tend to look after their own quite well, but often there is a need for assistance from the government agencies to people in

the service sector, where the mining companies do not have a great responsibility.
Another industry that has been in a stronger position in the last year is the steel industry. I think the situation applies to the industry across Canada as well as to Algoma Steel at Sault Ste. Marie. The industry is operating at over 90 per cent capacity and is very close to 95 per cent of its capacity. If we compare our steel industry to that of Japan's, it is my understanding that they have had to shut down 22 of their 64 blast furnaces due to unused capacity.
The fact that our steel industry in Canada is in a very positive position is not something that can be taken for granted. Just a year or so ago Japan and several other countries were dumping steel on the Canadian market. A successful anti-dumping suit was brought against these companies and they have now moved back to a position where they are selling their steel in Canada at the same prices as the Canadian manufacturers. At the same time the Department of Finance and Department of National Revenue have established a benchmark procedure to assure that steel coming into the country is properly monitored so that there is no dumping.
If we look at the demands by the northern gas pipeline for steel, we can see that the market will improve in the years ahead. Just a few weeks ago the Foothills Pipeline company called tenders in the amount of 1.4 billion tons of steel. It is my understanding that during the next few weeks the Foothills company will be putting a procurement plan before the federal government and the minister responsible for the pipeline to assure that it meets all the needs of the Canadian market. I believe that we will see a continued strong situation in the steel industry in this country because of that pipeline, which will not only bring Prudhoe Bay gas to the lower 48 states, but will provide a transportation route for Canadian gas to the southern part of our country.
These are just four resource industries which are in a very strong position in our country. I hope that we recognize this as fact and do not listen to the doom and gloom we hear from the other side of the House.
It is important to note in the Speech from the Throne that significant incentives will be provided to the private sector during this coming year. Part of the strategy of the government in creating a healthy economy is to build on the strong industries we have today. The government intends to move back the level of government expenditure by $2.5 billion in order to let the private sector go forward.
At the same time the government recognizes that there are over 900,000 people unemployed in Canada today. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has put together a program called "Strategy for Employment" which will provide some $710 million during the coming fiscal year to create 113,000 man-years of work and thus provide training and job opportunities for some 368,000 people.
An important thing about this, in my view, is that in addition to the 70 per cent increase in the number of jobs in
October 30, 1978

the next fiscal year this program will provide young people with some $225 million in the next fiscal year through, for example, the job experience training program. This was started last year and will utilize some unemployment insurance funds to give young people on the job experience in industry and in the private sector, while at the same time increasing the work force in the private sector. I want to congratulate the minister on that. It is an important strategy and one that has not been discussed enough.
Not only will that program operate all year round but there is as well a Young Canada Works program whose budget has been increased from $48 million to $62 million. Every year dozens of young people in communities enjoy the advantage of this program and the communities they serve enjoy the advantage of seeing their community projects carried out.
It seems to me that as we look at the Canadian scene today, although we see many economic problems we can also see a great number of positive things in the economy, in trade and in the resource industries. We should build on this and not whine about the difficulties we face. It is only by using the positive aspects of our economy to build on, both through the private sector and the direct job-creation programs of the government, that we will fulfil the great potential of this country.
After the vote tonight I believe we should get on with the business of this session of parliament. There is much positive and constructive legislation to be passed and we should pass it in a spirit of confidence so that we may reach the full potential that the resources of this country provide to us.
[ Translation]


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I will try and condense my remarks as much as possible to comply with a wish by some official opposition members. First I would commend the mover and seconder of the address. The careful reader of the throne speech for this new session of the thirtieth parliament notes two priorities, the strengthening of our Canadian economy and the renewal of our federation, according to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We are all agreed on the principle of a boost to the economy, but differences appear on the means of doing it. As concerns the renewal of our federation, we still do not have a clear notion of what the Prime Minister means by that phrase. A closest scrutiny might detect the dark ideas the Prime Minister is most jealously hiding from the people, his surprise box, so to speak. I shall come back to this in a few moments.
If we were to sum up in a very clear way the government's master thought in the throne speech and the legislative program, we might say it wants the provinces to pay the cost of its own mismanagement, taking this opportunity of a crisis of its own doing to take away from the provinces still more powers in order to reach its ultimate goal, the dictatorial federalism it has been trying to establish for ten years. When the Prime Minister refers to strengthening the economy, it is amazing how he sidesteps the issue of dealing with monopolies that affect the everyday life of Canadians, making them poorer by
The Address-Mr. Foster
the day, to the point it is normal these days to suggest the rich are getting bigger and bigger and the poor are getting smaller and smaller, and greater in numbers. When I discovered that before the 40's, workers paid no direct taxes, income tax in other words, I found that in those years big corporations paid 75 per cent of the national budget, which left only 25 per cent to collect from royalties or indirect taxes. Today, workers pay 75 per cent of the national budget while the big industrial and financial monopolies pay only 25 per cent, although their net revenues are ten times bigger than 40 years ago. It is therefore pointless to ask why workers are heavily burdened by federal taxes. The government proposes to reduce its expenditures, but this once more will be at the expense of small wage earners. Indeed, it is getting at those who cannot find work, the unemployed, people under welfare who have been denied benefits.
As always and according to a pre-conceived plan, the federal government will let the provincial governments support the burden of its mismanagement while keeping all the taxation rights and unemployment insurance premiums. The ministers are well aware that restricting eligibility for unemployment insurance and reducing the benefit period will cut down the number of recipients and proportionally increase the number of people on provincial welfare programs. The policy of this government is always to take more from the pay cheque of the worker and give him as little as possible. It keeps the provinces quiet by promising them to deal with such or such a sector to obtain the exclusive taxation rights in this area, and then it reneges on its promise while keeping the taxation rights obtained from the provinces. You will say that this is hypocrisy, but it is much more than that. It is treason! However, I do not want to go on any longer on this economic subject, but I shall probably come back to it during the budget debate.
I want to call the attention of parliament to a particular subject, the question of federalism. We must draw the attention of our young people to this notion of federalism. As for the renewal of federation, as it is called today-and I wonder why since it never really existed in Canada as we still have a confederation system-as for a renewal of the federation, the answer is certainly not in totally sterile discussions such as that which we witnessed in the House the other day between the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). This discussion reminded me of a cock fight, and this assembly should be above such things. Such bickering is of no use to the Canadian people who would rather have more information and more details about the political and economic direction of our country.
In the few minutes allotted to me, I would like to appeal to the intelligence of those members who want to leave the paths of petty politics on which many have ventured during the debates of this House since the first mention of an election. It is very important first of all to see where we are today. For ten
614

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Foster
years, the Prime Minister and his government have repeated the words profitable federalism; they have said that we need a strong central government for a united Canada, and so on, and suggested that those who want to oppose this extremist policy which is a fore runner of the bureaucratic dictatorship that we have repeatedly denounced, are destructors of Canada or even separatists. Even the proposal of a third solution by the Pepin-Robarts Commission had no merit in the eyes of the Prime Minister who believes that he alone holds the true solution.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be an end to this verbal battle. The Prime Minister is trying to stir up a war between the provinces which want only one thing, that is to be given back the direct taxation right guaranteed under the British North America Act, which ensures their autonomy or their sovereignty, if you prefer, the base of the confederation created in 1867. I wonder if the greatest separatist nowadays is not the Prime Minister of Canada, because of his intransigence and his harshness towards the provinces. And to give the population an idea of the importance of the debate opening today, it is enough to define "confederation" and "federalism." These definitions are of major importance for all Canadians who will have to make a decision on the form of government of the future. Until now, the old political parties have played so much with words to delude the public and try to impose their ideology that the public wonders where it stands in regard with the 1867 confederation. Canadians seriously wonder if the words still retain their original meaning because the politicians have distorted them so much. Mr. Speaker, this is no time for confrontation but for negotiation. What is a confederation? I come now to it's definition. According to the dictionary a confederation is a union of sovereign, hence independent and autonomous states. That is the kind of confederation the Fathers of Confederation wanted. At least that is the meaning given to confederation in the dictionary. That is quite clear. So why does the Prime Minister call separatists all those who claim that sovereignty for the provinces and Quebec in particular? Is he denying that right of the provinces to sovereignty? That is exactly what the Fathers of Confederation wanted in all freedom in 1867, and that is what we should have in Canada today.
Had that confederation not been polluted by the ever increasing appetite of the federal government which resulted in the provinces being robbed of 50 per cent of their rights in the past 110 years we would not be having that fight to recover provincial rights guaranteed by the British North America Act, that sovereignty which was the essential condition of the confederative pact of 1867, with freedom of choice. Why has the Liberal government been trying for the past ten years to deny both? The evidence is there, and all governments since 1867 have recognized that undeniable fact. That sovereignty was always respected in spite of all the compromises reached at federal-provincial conferences. Indeed, even in 1942, that

sovereignty was confirmed by the government of the time and recognized by all political parties in the House. In support of that, I refer those who want to read it to the schedule attached to the draft agreement of 1942. For ten years the Prime Minister has been waging the fight for federalism which he does not want to define to enlighten somewhat the people in that maze where he wants to keep them.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a few paragraphs of that agreement of 1942. You know that the province of Quebec gave up with the other provinces its rights to direct taxation on account of the war, and 1 quote:
Whereas it is necessary that the federal parliament alone have the power to levy direct taxes on incomes and corporations to allow Canada to give a maximum effort in the pursuit of the present war;
Whereas the federal government is willing to pay adequate compensation to the province provided it agrees not to levy such taxes for the duration of the war;
Whereas the federal government recognizes that the province, in agreeing to do so, does not in any way give up or cede any part of its sovereignty or any of its constitutional rights, powers and privileges;
That seems clear to me. Those who want to read that agreement will see that the federal government recognized the sovereignty of the provinces and also respected it. And furthermore, it agreed to respect it. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Fathers of Confederation wanted in all liberty in 1867, and that is what we would like to see today in Canada. Why then make it a crime for a province to want to recover that sovereignty? I think we will see a good example of it when time comes to discuss monetary matters with the other provinces. They will want to hang on to their monetary sovereignty.
What is that federalism the right hon. Prime Minister would implement through force? I say "force" because not one province agrees with the government, and the best proof of it is what we saw in the last elections. Let us count what is left of the Liberal government in the provinces and we will have even better proof when time comes to discuss jurisdictions and the sharing of powers on the economic level. I want that definition to be remembered.
What is federalism? According to the dictionary it is a political system in which several independent and sovereign states relinquish a part of their sovereignty to a supreme state. It is quite clear. I think that is the idea that the right hon. Prime Minister has in mind. In fact, the provinces will have to sacrifice their sovereignty to the benefit of a strong central government. And the Prime Minister confirms my assumptions when he declares in his legislative program that "the new constitution must provide that Canada will remain a true federation." Is it possible in Canada? It might be possible when two nations are living in the same unified country and one of them is assimilated by the other; but I think this situation does not prevail in Canada as Lord Durham's prediction did not come true yet. The English provinces, also keeping a jealous watch over their economic sovereignty, have just proved it by rejecting the Liberal party in all their provinces. The province of Quebec is adult enough to make its own
October 30, 1978

decision about its future. When I hear charges of separatism, it reminds me of the fall of 1970 when the government saw the FLQ everywhere but forgot to check within its own party, its own departments and its own police force.
I prefer to believe that the present government will consider the provinces as autonomous states by giving them back their property taxes that are direct taxes, so that they can manage their own affairs. We recognize that every province is different and that in Quebec this difference is even more acute because of its language, its common law, its institutions and what have you. This is why we do not believe in unity but in harmony between Canadian nations. This is what we believe and what we propose.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister declares for the hundredth time his desire to make Canada a united country with a strong central government, that is to make the people accept the bureaucratic dictatorship he has imposed on us in the last ten years. The Liberal party is continually proclaiming that the Quebec government was not elected to separate Canada and, in my view, that party answers by moving towards negotiation. But we want to tell the Prime Minister that neither was he elected to establish a dictatorship in Canada. The worst is that he knows what he is doing, and where he is going while he is shouting to Mr. Levesque to explain clearly his sovereignty-association theory. Does the Prime Minister define clearly what his federalism means? He takes care not to do so, Mr. Speaker.
On our side, we want the government to tell the Canadian people how it defines federalism. Does the Prime Minister tell the people that his federalism is defined in the dictionary? Everyone noticed that he never says the word confederation. However this is what we want, and the 1867 union was a confederation, which was a bit of a sham, but it is what the four provinces at that time, which were still British colonies, wanted. They even gave birth to the federal government in all freedom, after consulting each other.
When I was a schoolboy they always praised the merits of , the Fathers of Confederation. But as adults, we lived the reality of this confederative union. Today, we admit that the Fathers of Confederation had perhaps good intentions but it is not enough to establish a free country. We went through the sad experience of a colonized country, with all the underlying consequences, and this reality still haunts the minds of several of our older people.
This is why we want a renewal but this time it is wanted by us, a constitution written by the provinces clearly indicating the fields of activity that they would grant to the federal government which would become a creature of the provinces, that is what is was at the beginning, working in sectors well defined by the provinces such as currency, defence, external affairs, post office etc., those provisions being accepted at first under a provincial referendum to be ratified by a second national referendum.
The Address-Mr. Malone
Such is the position of our party, Mr. Speaker, a position which we have always championed and which we continue to champion to restore Canadian harmony. I am convinced that if we do not take a step in that direction, we will be led to disaster. I therefore ask each citizen to consider thoroughly the national issue leaving aside for a moment his partisanship to choose the form of government he seeks.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commence in the traditional way by extending my thanks to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I do not do so because it is the tradition that we do it to newer members of this chamber, but because I believe they distinguished themselves in their content and in their eloquence.
Before getting into my remarks, I wish to state that I feel a very deep sense of uniqueness about today. While different members have spoken on national unity in this country, in the government and opposition lobbies we have been watching over television the first ministers' conference.
There are some tremendous debates on the various views and opinions in the country, in this House and across the street as to how this country ought to be forged together. In that vein, I wish the first ministers great wisdom. I hope they will have a far-sighted vision and genuine compassion for the regions of Canada. This is a very important day. All members will want to extend to them best wishes on what could be a very historical deliberation.
We are at a place in our history where we must give serious consideration as to how we are going to unite ourselves. This question of national unity has been surrounded with many myths which have been perpetuated by those who would like to put national unity in front of the Canadian people as a red herring in order to divert their attention from the real issues facing this nation.
Until Bill C-60 came before the House of Commons last spring, not a single constituent ever asked me about the Constitution of Canada and why it was not changed. In my four years as a member of parliament, in fact in the previous 30 to 40 years, there has not been a single bill, regulation or piece of legislation that has somehow been denied by the present constitution.
Some myths and falsehoods are being perpetuated by the present government. One was reiterated this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his opening speech. He said that Canada does not have a constitution and that we have been trying to get one for some 50 years. He went on to say that no other nation in the world is in the situation Canada is in of not having a constitution.
We do have a constitution. It is defined as the British North America Act. Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific are fully aware that it is our constitution, that it belongs to us. It is unfortunate that it is implied that somehow we are a lesser
80065-401/:!

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Malone
nation because we are not guided by some piece of paper and that we are thereby a colony of Great Britain.
Although our constitution came to us in a different form than did that of the United States, we do have a constitution. Having said that, I want to say this is a momentous day. The task is not that of writing a constitution for Canada. The task is trying to improve that which we already have.
There is another important idea which must be underscored at this time. There can be nothing terminal in the date of July 1, 1979. The Prime Minister has said that by the date the constitution of Canada must be passed or put in a form that is to his likeness. Obviously, it must have the greatest of deliberation. It must not be tied to a timetable simply to enable the Prime Minister to achieve his ultimate end of taking his place in history as the one who established constitutional reform in Canada. That is a dangerous program to follow. To take something so fundamental as the constitution and to put a time frame on it is to embark on a dangerous course.
Constitutions by their nature guide the very way in which we live. Whether it be a constitution for a youth organization, company or manufacturing organization, club or association, or for the government of the country, it is simply a piece of paper, a document to guide how we will act one toward another.
The government has chosen the wrong time to bring the constitution question into focus. Groups and societies decide how they will act together when they are in a state of harmony. What we have today is a country torn apart, a country that is divided, a country that is unemployed, that has no work, that lacks production, has a $50 billion debt and in every way has created tensions on language, cultural, ethnic and economic grounds. It is in that milieu that the Prime Minister is trying to say that we will formulate a constitution for ourselves and decide how we will relate to one another for however long Canada shall be. It is in that messy, ugly chicken coop that the Prime Minister, acting as the fox, is trying to preach national unity.
If we look, then, at some of the issues on which we note that division has taken place, we find there has been confrontation with the provinces, an assumption of unilateral powers by the federal government, and a desire to treat the Queen like some kind of Christmas tree ornament. Our balance of trade has significantly decreased, the value of the dollar is down, we have seen a 230 per cent increase in government spending, and the phasing out of small vessel insurance on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts which makes the workers feel that somehow less attention is being given to their concerns and needs.
The most dangerous threat to unity is to talk about unity at a time when you have not established common goals. I would submit that one of the most dangerous things we could be doing is talking about national unity at the very time when there is this sense of stress in the nation. We might even say that one of the greatest dangers to national harmony itself is the perpetual dominance of talk about unity. A country could

well be like a marriage; if all we are going to do is talk about the things that make us different, obviously harmony cannot be found.
When you have common goals and common objectives, that is when you grow together, as was truly evident in this country in 1967 when Expo brought this nation together. It was clearly evident in the first hockey game between Canada and the Soviet Union, when we acted from our hearts as one. But it is clearly not the case today when, after ten years of this government's mismanagement, we see people divided, thinking in different ways. I believe strongly that the proper approach to national unity is to recreate for this country a common set of objectives, common drives, common aspirations. After a sense of goodwill has been developed in all regions of the country, we can then sit down in a spirit of mutual co-operation and hammer out the kind of nation we want to have.
Expanding some of the comments I was making when I said the Prime Minister had divided this nation, I would like to underscore some of the ways in which I believe he has very deliberately, I would say, cast an injustice upon my part of the country, namely western Canada. Two years ago they purchased from our side of the House a man to go to sit with them as a cabinet minister. That person was somehow to be the guardian of the province of Alberta in the cabinet. After going through the list of injustices which have been done to the province of Alberta, I can only conclude that sending the Minister of Inudstry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) to guard Alberta against Liberals is analagous only to sending an alley cat to guard mice.
Let us take a look at some of the detrimental things that have happened to the province of Alberta. If anyone is in any way intending to protect that province from the government, there is every reason to believe he simply is not being effective. We note that construction of the Lethbridge Research Laboratory has been cancelled. We note that the contribution toward the construction of a veterinary university has been cancelled; students from that large livestock producing province must now migrate to another province in order to get that style of education. The Canfarm program has been canned, together with the Canadian Dairy Commission's allocation for product research.
I think that is important, because this is a party which believes in trimming the fat from the budget. But much of what we are talking about here deals with the very kind of incentives that will increase the production of the country. The Farm Credit Corporation has suffered a reduction of some $23 million and there is no group of people in the nation today anywhere, by the admission of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), which has a better record for production and per capita output than does the farming population. Again, the forestry research stations are very closely related to production. Several of those were intended to be closed. The only ones that got reopened happened to be those in Liberal ridings; somehow the heat from back home warmed up some of the cabinet ministers.
October 30, 1978

How else, Mr. Speaker, would Alberta have felt recognizing that, when they wanted to make a natural gas trade with the United States in relation to some beef imports, the heavy hand of the Minister of Agriculture prevented it? How else would they act when there is a sales tax rebate program for every province except Alberta, and they do not get in on those federal cookies because somehow it looks to them like a Liberal barren wasteland? So they simply turn an ignoring eye. How were they supposed to act when the public utilities income tax transfer act made changes which most significantly affected Alberta? Because utilities in that province are largely privately-owned and therefore will not be part of this particular program. Take the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce where they cut $9 million from marketing incentive programs and imposed a reduction in assistance for grains and oil seed marketing. Obviously, there are places where government can cut. I do not want to get on record as saying I do not think we should make cuts. But there are in excess of 360 Crown corporations, many of which could easily be put up for individual Canadians to buy shares in, much along the lines Alberta did with the Alberta Gas Trunk Lines; thus Canadians could invest in their own resources and take over some of these top-heavy government agencies which could easily go back into private hands.
We note that in transportation, market research, forestry and agricultural research, the area of assisting people in production, the very areas in which we are failing as a nation economically, the government has decided to cut back. One does not have to be an economist or need to have a very high education or a great sense of wisdom to take that blue book of expenditures off the shelf and turn through the pages and cut far more than the $2 billion the government cut without directly injuring areas which significantly affect the productivity of the nation.
My opponent in the next election has put out little match boxes in the riding which say "Re-elect an effective voice in Ottawa". All I know is that after the damage which has been done to the province by Ottawa we do not want effective voices down here, because every time we get them we lose. We heard that before when Pat Mahoney was here; we got the capital gains tax. I submit that is one of the most retrograde taxes which could be imposed on a democratic society. Democracies, in order to work, require a strong middle class. Capital gains taxes do not tax the poor because they do not make money, and they do not tax the rich corporations because they do not sell. General Motors does not sell, and IBM does not sell. Such companies do not therefore get into the position of having to pay capital gains tax.
But the owner of the local barber shop, small businessmen generally, are in a different position. To every generation of such people the government comes for its pound of flesh. It is a very dangerous aspect of our tax system in light of the fact that this is the part of society which creates the largest percentage of wealth, something like 55 per cent, and the largest share of employment, about 80 per cent. The government somehow thinks it has to go after that sector with the
The Address-Mr. Malone
capital gains tax because it wants universality regarding retirement funds. The government would rather tax people and then put them on government pensions than give them incentives to produce.
I mentioned that Ottawa picks on the regions. It uses a sledgehammer to drive shingle nails. It has made cuts in an attempt to fool the public. The government claims it wants to cut back, but a serious analysis would show that there is no such intention. The cuts made were in the most popular programs in an attempt to get the public and the opposition angry so that later they will demand that those programs be reinstated. That would give the Prime Minister the opportunity to shrug his shoulders and say, "I tried to make cuts, but they did not like them". Then he will continue his rampant spending.
Transportation is seriously inadequate in all parts of the country. I began today by talking about national unity. I submit that one of the most important aspects regarding national unity is an improved transportation system. The inequities which exist in the present system cause one region to be angry with all or some regions of the country. Potatoes from Atlantic Canada often reach their destinations 30 per cent frozen because of a lack of insulated cars. Products from the prairies are not getting to market, yet this government allows 23,000 grain cars to be on loan to the United States because there is a better dollar for them down there.
We need to develop infrastructures which would give us a productivity level which would get our balance of payments back on track, but the reserves is the situation. For example, the government decided to sell five inland grain terminals which were underutilized. Even though they were underutilized, they had been making profits in the previous several years. The Hall commission report strongly recommended that those elevators not be sold but, rather, upgraded and utilized more. It is important that we recognize that grain should be dried and cleaned on the prairies prior to being taken to market. That has been talked about since the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. That conference was called because in 1972 the government lost four Liberal members in the province of Alberta, and the Prime Minister wanted to find out what Alberta really wanted.
The Western Economic Opportunities Conference brought great promise. It underscored many transportation requirements. It underscored many regional disparities regarding production. However, nothing was done. After that conference the Hall and Snavely commissions were set up. Those two commissions outlined palatable and acceptable recommendations as far as westerners were concerned, and western producers were encouraged, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) then set up another commission to study the recommendations of the first two commissions. The people of this country are getting tired of studies to find out what other studies mean. They want a government which is committed to

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Malone
action which will right the inequities which exist and which will give them some sense of direction.
This government wears masks. It appointed an ombudsman for the Ministry of Transport, for whom there is no need. That is an absolute waste of money. The A-uditor General is assigned the task of checking on various departments. Any well managed government department does not need an ombudsman. We may well need ombudsmen at the federal and provincial levels to act as clearing houses for citizens at large, but surely not at the departmental level. This kind of ombudsman concept smacks of a government which is admitting its incapacity to govern.
This government sold five elevators in an attempt to trim its budget, yet the elevators were making money for the federal treasury.
The government built a railway to Churchill, Manitoba, using 100-pound steel except for the last few miles, where it used 80 pound steel. Therefore, the only trains which can be used for the whole length of the track are trains which have loads no heavier than that which can travel on 80-pound steel. That is the kind of ineffective mismanagement that we have.
The government talks about increasing storage capacity at the terminals at the port of Churchill, yet we note that this year the port of Churchill was underutilized by some nine million bushels. The government talks about selling more grain abroad, yet it allows 23,000 grain cars to be on loan in the United States. The result is reduced productivity.
Mr. Speaker, I see that hon. members opposite are either sleepy or hungry, so I will call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I was very apologetic when I called it six o'clock. Even though there are many problems I should like to discuss, I will relinquish the rest of my time since there are other hon. members who want to participate in this debate.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-H6bert):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member who has yielded his right to speak. I will try to be as brief as possible since there are many hon. members who wish to take part in the debate.
Last year I had the honour to be one of the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I therefore seize this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for

York South (Mrs. Appolloni) for the outstanding distinction with which she performed that task. As for the seconder, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard), I found it significant that he emphasized in his speech the difficulties senior citizens are up against in our society of today. Besides, I did point out in my speech last year the circumstances of the young, the old and the low income people. The federal government has done much in these areas but, like the hon. member for Verdun, I feel that it will have to intensify those programs.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes which I am being granted, I will attempt once again to raise the questions contained in the speech I delivered last year in the House of Commons and to assess the extent of government action in this respect.
Among the issues which I brought to the attention of the House last year was the economic development of the Quebec region. On that specific issue, I want to congratulate the government for the contribution it made to the development of the Quebec harbour by dredging the channel of the Saint-Laurent River so as to lower its level from 38 to 41 feet.
This year the government went one step further. The Department of Transports has already commissioned a study dealing with the construction of a wood product shipping harbour for the Quebec area.
Moreover we should mention the development project in the harbour of the old city of Quebec which was announced on February 13 this year during the travelling caucus of which I was chairman and which brought together five ministers and a dozen members from Quebec and Ontario into the riding of Louis-Hebert and the Quebec region.
Announced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), Quebec city's old harbour development project implies numerous and significant benefits on the economic development of the area. This $42 million federal program spread over four years is designed to give a new life to some 179 acres of federal acreage located in Quebec city's old harbour district. It will involve the relocation of some industrial, harbour and railway facilities that are now antiquated and do not belong in the urban and historical environment surrounding them. These facilities would be replaced by cultural, leisure and social services, as well as residential and administrative buildings.
However, I must insist that this should be only the beginning of harbour development in the Quebec city area because its harbour is in competition with other ports on the St. Lawrence River, on the Atlantic as well as the western coast. The Quebec city metropolitan area already has a good railway and road system allowing for the quick transportation of goods to the large centres. The Quebec city area offers tremendous potential, and I believe it is essential to develop its harbour.
In this vein of economic development in the Quebec city region, Mr. Speaker, the extension of its airport is a second priority which I dealt with in my speech last year. A few
October 30, 1978

months ago, the Minister of Transport made announcements in this regard. First, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), acting as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, answered my question regarding the extension of runways. He announced in the House that in view of Quebec City's hotel accommodation and convention facilities, and I quote:
-it becomes more and more urgent to extend the present runway. This is why the minister intends to ask very soon for the necessary funds to extend the runway to 9,000 feet. We hope that the amounts will be invested in the area at the very beginning of summer.
Then, in August, 1978, at a press conference held jointly with representatives of the chamber of commerce and industry of metropolitan Quebec city, the Department of Transport tabled a master plan for the development of the airport over the next ten years.
The master plan of the Quebec airport provides for the extension of one of the two runways to 2743 metres, that is 9,000 feet, in order to accommodate big jets; the building of boarding ramps to be announced shortly; the addition of another storey to the air terminal in order to build a restaurant; and finally, the eventual separation of commercial traffic from small craft training flights and general aviation. That plan, which has been approved by the Department of Transport, is the result of joint studies and consultations by all interested organizations in the Quebec area, including the air companies and the Association des Gens de l'air. It is designed mainly to meet the increasing needs of the Quebec region and to promote the tourist industry in that area.
The national unity issue was also raised in the debate last year and again this year. It was dealt with according to the highlights of the Speech from the Throne made about two weeks ago.
I also know that the government's primary objective is to give back to the country a sense of unity. It is seeking solutions by consulting all individuals and all agencies or groups concerned about the country's future. Moreover, we cannot ignore the fact that we are all affected by the national unity crisis no matter what hon. members of the opposition say. We all know that economic prosperity will not be of a great use to us if we lose our country through internal quarrels and Quebec's separation.
In a very real sense, Mr. Speaker, national unity should remain our first subject of concern. We owe it to ourselves to pursue our search and to keep conceiving new policies and new strategies. We have to create the blend of collective will and individual attitudes that will allow all Canadians to feel at home everywhere in Canada and to participate in all justice and plenitude in the life and prosperity of the country.
To solve the problems that threaten the stability, the unity and the prosperity of our country, a fundamental renewal of the federation of Canada is imperative. At this turning point in the history of our country, we have a unique opportunity to
reaffirm our basic values and adjust our practices, our institu-
The Address-Mr. Dawson tions and our constitution to modern realities.
Further to its commitment, in June last the federal government tabled a white paper entitled "A Time for Action", which traces the main steps towards renewal of the Canadian federation, and Bill C-60 on the constitutional reform. Canadians, and more so Quebeckers, have surely been able to see that the government of Canada is in earnest, and that it does not deal in abstract notions such as the so-called sovereignty-association.
The government attempts to define an orientation, to prove, once more, Mr. Speaker, its will to come up with negotiable proposals. We saw that again this afternoon when the federal government made proposals. All the prime ministers of the provinces stressed the fact that the matter was not necessarily urgent. This afternoon, we heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone).
To that end, the government set up a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the constitution of Canada. That committee, which was instructed to study and report on the proposals which have been made and will be made public at a later date by the Canadian government on matters pertaining to the constitution of Canada, heard several witnesses, individuals as well as organizations, all of whom are concerned with the constitutional renewal.
As one of the representatives of the House of Commons on that committee, I was in a position to see how necessary the reform of the constitution is, except perhaps in the eyes of a few hon. members.
Thus the need for a new constitution is a major necessity if we are to try to keep Quebec and Quebeckers in confederation. The dilemma with which we are faced is not simple. As professor Leon Dion of Laval University said in his brief before the committee:
Therefore, we have to decide whether it would be better to carry out the revision of the Constitution immediately without the participation of the Quebec government or whether on the contrary the whole matter should be postponed as long as Quebec, through a referendum or otherwise, would not have succeeded in expressing a unanimous opinion. By waiting for Quebec we risk causing a serious delay in the reshaping of the country, but by acting without Quebec we risk doing useless work and reaping sour grapes.
This dilemma is not simple and, if we add to it the resistance we have seen to the first propositions of the government, our task is far from finished.

This year's Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General mentions that the government is prepared to begin the study of the distribution of powers and jurisdictions at the same time as that of institutions and rights, and to give every aspect of the work a high and urgent priority. Even after meeting that request, Mr. Speaker, we saw once again this afternoon at the first ministers' conference that this is not

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Dawson
enough for the province of Quebec or the other provinces. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Canada should show once again a great flexibility and a great deal of good faith.
On the other hand, I am happy to see the increased importance the government attaches these days to the problems of unemployment among young people. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) defined last week a score of programs to bring young people into the labor market through grants for the hiring of new graduates and young unemployed graduates. Those programs are intended to provide jobs for about 58,000 unemployed youths. Once again, we saw in the Speech from the Throne the importance the government attaches to that priority, namely the problem of unemployment among young people. And I quote from the Speech:
The major thrust of the government's employment strategy is to encourage the creation of permanent jobs in the private sector. Special emphasis is being placed on the training and job placement of young Canadians.
The problem of unemployment among young people is not acute only in Canada; it exists in most western countries. I hope the government of Canada with its new measures will continue to show leadership in its fight against that plague. Mr. Speaker, let me say in concluding that after more than a year in the House of Commons I am proud to be part of this group of parliamentarians-with a few exceptions, I must admit-trying to help Canadians save this country regardless of their origin and their affiliations. I am proud to be part of this government and I am proud to represent and serve the people of the riding of Louis-Hebert from this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 recognize the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Shymko). I should like to point out to hon. members that this is the hon. member's maiden speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, before making any comment on the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne opening the fourth session of the thirtieth parliament, I would like first to reaffirm one feeling and indeed one reality related to the fact that I am here as a member of the House of Commons, among this elite, this distinguished assembly, distinguished because of its speakers, its leaders and sometimes because of its actors.
First I speak of that feeling. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, as a youngster of 13, I arrived here in Canada as a political immigrant with my parents. Having survived hatred, war and death as one of the survivors from Dresden-everybody has heard and knows about the tragedy in that city-I came to this country of dream, of peace, of liberty and justice, and I am
now among you as a member. That is possible only in a country like Canada. I must remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have to change my name Yuri for George and Shymko for Simcoe to achieve that. I hope that this country, where such a rare opportunity exists in a world of prejudices and intolerance, will continue to represent the dream, the hope, the optimism of knowing that what is impossible in other countries is still possible in Canada. That is possible because of the people, because of the moral and individual values which form the political, economic and social framework in which we as leaders are operating and which we must protect at any cost.
Referring to the second reality, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact inconsistent with all speculations, projections and political prophecies of those experts who predicted that the representative of the governing party would win the by-election in the Parkdale fortress. Well, here I am. I am not a ghost and what you see is real and possible, a prophetic indication for the spring of 1979 of which hon. members opposite are well aware.
It was Pascal, the great French philosopher who said: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." Well, Mr. Speaker, the Parkdale constituents have shown their feelings when they voted against all the arguments of the media and political experts, in spite of two personal visits of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau), in spite of the constant visits of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). When they voted they showed their feeling, their compassion for this country, their love for that politically polarized, divided and as we know, economically bankrupt country. I will not quote any statistics, you have heard enough statistics given by my colleagues on this side of the House. This is why I decided to give my first speech in the House and I wish to comment on the following paragraph taken from the Speech from the Throne:
We wish also to express our love of Canada. A great country is not created without difficulty, but to see it develop and grow stronger despite every obstacle has been for us a source of great joy and pride. Our faith in the future of Canada is stronger than it has ever been.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak of that love and faith.
I, too, will not be partisan, like the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), the minister for external affairs, and I will try to digress somehow from the normal procedure. I will speak of the essence of our function as members of parliament and of our common responsibilities as servants of the people on whatever side of this House we sit. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said, "Canada grows stronger." It reminds me of the cliche of the past campaigns, "The land is strong." He has also said, "Our faith in Canada is stronger than it has ever been."
Let us look at the growing strength of Canada under the management, or more appropriately, the mismanagement, of this government. What kind of strength do we have with one million unemployed, a diminishing manufacturing industry

October 30, 1978

which, in fact, makes Canada a warehouse for imported manufactured products, with a Canadian dollar at its lowest base-lower than the worst period of the depression-with a standard of living that has fallen from second to seventh place in the world? How can the Prime Minister call Canada strong with a $15 billion deficit that is growing every day? How can Canada be considered strong when the government proposes a bill to borrow $17 billion to save the country from total bankruptcy? I could spend the next hour listing the Liberal interpretations of strength. If this is strength, I cannot imagine what the Liberal definition for a weak economy is.
The right hon. member for Mount Royal spoke about faith. We could see examples of that faith in our economy when 1.7 billion of Canada's dollars have left this country in the past three years, when the Prime Minister himself had to go to Germany to be "Schmidt-en" with the wisdom of realizing that the priority of this land is the economy. The proposals of Her Majesty's opposition to cut government spending by $2 billion were the best and the only options that made any sense. Ask and ye shall be given; the government asked and the opposition certainly gave the answers.
But above all, it represents one basic truth, that the government has lost its moral prestige and its moral authority in Canada and now wants to use its sole legal authority to make this fourth session an electioneering session to save face before its citizens. It will, indeed, be a tragedy if the government turns this session into an election campaign. If we do this it will destroy the very aim of parliament-to rule and to legislate, to serve, not to manipulate the hopes and needs of people. The function of parliament as I understood it before being elected, and as I still understand it, is not to become a pompous circus for the entertainment of others or for selfgratification. If such is the aim of the government, it would be much better to accept the reality, as many ministers have themselves admitted, that people in Canada have had enough. They are protesting, as illustrated by the results of the by-elections. The people want a change and there is nothing wrong with changing sides on the floor of this House. We do it as individuals and as gentlemen every day between debates, and all we need do now is to do it collectively.
The Prime Minister likes to pick on the opposition, as was illustrated last week when he colourfully referred to the posterior of a member of the opposition and wanted to kick that particular part of his anatomy. I admit it was quite an introduction to the House of Commons, to be here when that famous remark was made. It was interesting that it was the only remark that made the media. In the confusion I thought that the Prime Minister was referring to expanding his cabinet by picking another member of the opposition, following the example of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
Getting back to my earlier point, we can talk about love and faith, but we cannot legislate love and faith. Just as we cannot legislate tolerance, respect for the dignity of man and respect for law, we cannot legislate confidence in this land, confidence in this economy, confidence in this government and faith in our future. How can the government expect respect for the law
The Address-Mr. Shymko
from workers they have legislated back to work when, on the other hand, rumours and insinuations are rampant throughout this country that even some ministers of the Crown were tampering with illegalities? The government is responsible to the people and to parliament; the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) pointed this out this afternoon.
Lawmakers must be subjected to the rule of law, not to the rule of manifest unilateral authority. The Prime Minister, if he has not seen it by now, must stop moulding Canada in terms of the shape of his own ideas; he must change his views and values to reflect those of this nation and of the majority of its people. As for the question of unity, it would require another hour at least to adequately discuss this issue.
I would like to refer to the comments made today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-

-who states that as a former citizen of Newfoundland before that province joined our Canadian confederation a few years ago, he was a foreigner and that he now considers himself completely Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, what is most tragic is that at the time the minister joined the rest of Canada, Quebeckers felt strongly that they were Canadians, while today many of them-and the number is increasing-feel more and more like strangers in this vast country, which was in the past a country of great dreams and great visions and where they enthusiastically celebrated their centennial 11 years ago, united in their hopes and beliefs for the future. But today, Canada is divided, polarized and torn by fear and suspicion. A great number of studies have analysed this situation and suggested solutions. I simply want to say that the question of unity, the problems that it causes or the means to solve them are not as simple as we would want them to be. Everyone of us, Mr. Speaker, every party, every member of parliament, every government leader, whether federal or provincial, and every Canadian, whatever his cultural background, will need to make a great effort of understanding, tolerance and sacrifice if we are to solve this problem.
Let us compare this with the case of Newfoundland. There is only one point that I want to make; if in its historical evolution, Quebec has progressed toward a responsible, parliamentary and democratic government with a blossoming of collective and individual rights, if in its efforts towards the creation of a French-speaking nation in North America, as other colonies in North and South America which have gained their own independence, if Quebec had been autonomous like Newfoundland until the second part of this century, I am certain that it would find it much easier now to join this Canadian federation after having tasted independence. It is the lack of this second stage in its history which now troubles the French-speaking nation. But if we see Canada, like Laurier, as a cathedral still in the process of being built, as a courageous experiment-

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Shymko
-by a segment of humanity in a world where majorities destroy and persecute minorities; in a world where hatred and wars, injustice, the destruction of civil, human and national liberties are the rule, where democracies are the privileges of only one-fifth of the world's population. Let us not destroy this dream, let us not destroy this vision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yuri Roman Shymko: Let us build it with all the determination, all the faith, all the confidence, all the love and respect for one another that is at our disposal. Because I, as well as millions of Canadians, be they Anglophones, Francophones, or "neither-phones", still cherish this dream.
There is nothing wrong with bill 101, given a few revisions. There is nothing wrong with a referendum in Quebec, given that the majority of Quebecois, as I firmly believe, will speak out for unity, will speak for this confederation of regions, of peoples and of cultures. What is wrong is our indifference. What is wrong is our suspicion, our fears and, above all, our lack of confidence in ourselves that we can indeed "make it".
What is wrong is not that the Quebecois have taken over the civil service because they are the only bilingual segments of our population. What is wrong is that today only 43 per cent of high school students in such a great province as Ontario even bother to study French and that less than 5 per cent complete Grade 13.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


An hon. Member:: Tell Bill Davis about that!


Yuri Roman Shymko: The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, as well as the changes that are made in Quebec where the study of English was obligatory, is the fact that it was made an option, just as the study of French had been obligatory when I came to this country, a time when the crisis of unity did not exist. It was obligatory, but when the issue in this country became polarized, French was made an option. Now, no one bothers to study French, and the same trend is beginning in Quebec.
Let us not point to the premier of Ontario or to anyone in particular. As I said earlier, this is the responsibility of every Canadian, of every prime minister and of every premier of every province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yuri Roman Shymko: Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by referring again to the question of faith and love. Only the person who has faith in himself is able to have faith in others and is able to be faithful to others. In no other period in the history of this country has faith in ourselves been so diminished, so troubled, as in the last decade. Hon. members, Mr. Speaker, can deduce the reasons for themselves.
Faith is a condition of our ability to promise. As a condition of human existence, faith in the potentialities of others, the potentialities of government in particular, is slowly being eroded. Indeed, for one particular government very little is left.
As for love, Mr. Speaker, I should like to end my speech by quoting from a pocket book entitled "The Art of Loving". It does not deal with a subject that some hon. members would like to hear about. The author of this pocket book is Erich Fromm. At page 111, he has this to say:
Our society is run by a managerial bureaucracy, by professional politicians; people are motivated by mass suggestion, their aim is producing more and consuming more, as purposes in themselves. All activities are subordinated to economic goals, means have become ends; man is an automaton-well fed, well clad, but without any ultimate concern for that which is his peculiarly human quality and function. If man is to be able to love, he must be put in his supreme place. The economic machine must serve him, rather than he serve it. He must be enabled to share experience, to share work, rather than, at best, share in profits. Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it.
This is my conclusion, Mr. Speaker. It may have been a little philosophical but in the future 1 hope to have the opportunity to dwell on topics the surface of which I have just touched tonight. I thank this country for the honour and the privilege of being here with you and working with you for many months, if not many years. God bless you; God bless this country.


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


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and I would like to join all those who have congratulated my two colleagues, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) and my colleague from Toronto (Mr. Robinson) who have been the first to speak in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this speech which I want to keep brief will allow me to correct certain figures, to set some facts in their true light, which will permit me to create the optimism that is necessary and that should normally flow from the situation prevailing in Canada.
A few weeks ago, as by-elections took place, I was personally involved in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe. Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to see just how eager the opposition is to take power by any means, how they were prepared to use any argument without any basis in reality or on any economic fact. I see new members sitting on the opposite side of the House. Those new members are young people coming from all social classes, and I hope they will succeed in giving to the official opposition the desire to serve the cause at least by using sound and logical arguments which can be repeated throughout this country with the same conviction.
Mr. Speaker, we heard the Progressive Conservative candidate in Saint-Hyacinthe, probably as all or most of his other colleagues, saying that for one reason or another Canada had dropped from second to seventh rank-I do not know when- concerning the standard of living. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. Over the last ten years this country has recorded at all levels the best or the second best performance in the world.

October 30, 1978

We only have to look at the growth of employment from 1970 to 1977. The rate of growth in Canada was 23 per cent, followed by the United States with 15 per cent, then by Australia and Sweden-the latter being often cited as an example in Quebec-with 5 per cent. Japan, already cited as an example, also recorded 5 per cent. During the last decade, we have created around 250,000 new jobs a year. Mr. Speaker, you cannot find such a performance in any industrialized country during the last decade. As for growth of real domestic product, Canada ranked third with 4.5 per cent between 1968 and 1977. For the growth in industrial production, Canada had the second best percentage increase after Norway. In that country the rise was 38 per cent and 32 per cent in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on putting up figures and a list of impressive statistics; they are not accidental but due to the rational and consistent economic policy of this government. I will not mention what happened before 1974 when I became a member of this House. But in 1974, when we compared our situation-including the unemployment rate-with that of our main trading partner, the United States, we could note that Canada was holding better in that period than its neighbours. But in 1975, things changed; our country had to cope with a very high inflation rate and a sudden increase in unemployment. In 1975, Mr. Speaker, before the government decided to come up with a price, wage and benefit control policy, the wage increase in Canada was approximately 22 per cent while the rise in productivity was only 2 per cent. During the same year, the increase in wages and productivity was respectively 9 and 5 per cent in the United States.
Germany, which is often quoted as an example, had a 7 per cent rate of wage increase and its rate of productivity increase was around 8 per cent. Mr. Speaker, our country, whose economy is above all based on exports, had to act and change the situation which prevailed in 1975.
Instead of the policy advocated by members opposite calling for a price and wage freeze for a given period, our Prime Minister preferred a policy of price and wage as well as profit control spread out over a period of more than three months. Of course, some members opposite are laughing. However, from the results of such a policy in the United States as well as in Britain, one realizes that now the advisers of the American president as well as the Britons would never revert to such a three-month policy which works to the disadvantage of the workers.
Mr. Speaker, the government did not simply decide to control prices and wages; it also decided in 1975 to use its own budget to decide and state that from now on the growth in government spending would not exceed that of the gross national product, namely the growth rate of our gross national product. This commitment on the part of the government has been respected, Mr. Speaker, and last August the Prime Minister intervened again and stated that from now on not only the growth rate of government spending would not exceed
The Address-Mr. B. Loiselle
the growth rate of the gross national product but would remain below it.
Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that it is not merely by controlling government spending that the figures I stated earlier and several others which the Prime Minister referred to in his October 12 speech could be reached. Mr. Speaker, listening to the Tories during the last few months, you would have thought they had just discovered, after sitting down with a few Bay St. bankers and so-called businessmen, a series of new programs for economic recovery. We heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) mention programs for small and medium businesses. We heard the Leader of the Opposition and also the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) propose an over-all employment strategy, an industrial strategy for Canada.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition, during the summer months, put forward a series of programs, and I believe the only correlation that can be made is with the coldness of his feet at the thought of an election. Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable! In the morning, the leader of the Conservative party would come up with plans to cut $5 to $6 billion off government spending, while in the afternoon and evening he would be promising new programs. You know, it is rather difficult to convince a serious audience, not a chamber of commerce but a fifth concession, which does not even exist anymore in Quebec, to convince them their taxes can be reduced on the one hand while new incentives given on the other. Mr. Speaker, how can you spend and save at the same time?
However, probably due to leaks from officials as suggested by the Prime Minister, they took and did a poor job of copying certain programs that have been in the making inside the government for more than two years.
Mr. Speaker, this is my second year as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When I assumed that responsibility last year, the department was already engaged in an analysis of our various industrial segments in Canada for more than a year. Our department developed during that period a specific diagnosis concerning the 23 main industrial segments. At the federal-provincial conference of ministers of industry, trade and commerce in February of last year, we discussed with each of the provincial ministers these diagnostic studies that had been made available to them some months before, and we put to them the following question: Do you agree or not with that diagnosis we are making of the economic situation in such or such an area? No province told us: No, we are not in total agreement. Each and everyone, including management, including labour, recognized the accurateness of all the facts in those studies. On the basis of those first talks between industry and commerce ministers and of subsequent discussions at the time of the federal-provincial conference of finance ministers as well as the conference of first ministers, Mr. Speaker, our government and, more particularly, our department created 23 task forces made up of provincial, management and union representatives

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. B. Loiselle
as well as, of course, some federal government members, in order that from that diagnosis we would be able to develop recommendations involving all participants and certain measures to correct situations where corrections were needed.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history, a government has clearly shown enough responsibility to convince both management and labour to sit around the same table and not only discuss in times of confrontation over the negotiation of labour contracts. They have been sitting together since last April to study the source of those problems and the corrective measures to take in each area.
Mr. Speaker, 850 recommendations have resulted from that serious work. On those 850 recommendations, some 400 are directed to the federal government. Almost 300 are directed to provincial governments and the others, and this might be the most important denominator, the other recommendations- almost 200-are directed to unions and management. They decided to form permanent working groups that will engage in a continuing consultation process in order to establish common strategies.
Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition can only designate the hon. member-and it is strange he is not called Prime Minister anymore but the hon. member for Mount Royal-when the only word the members of the opposition can find when talking about this man is confrontation, but I shall come back to it when I get into constitutional matters, contrarily to the members opposite what they call confrontation is to me a good knowledge of the subject, which is completely different.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the process which started more than two years ago to demonstrate to what extent the government, confident in the economic situation, in the rules of the game, in the future of our country, committed itself with its partners of the economic sector to create not only a climate of optimism but also the climate that will encourage investors and that will encourage people not to be motivated by fear but by confidence in the economy and the future of their country.
Mr. Speaker, there are also other economic policies which unfortunately have not been reported adequately by the press. I refer to the statement made last May by the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan) when he set forth his policy on research and development. By this announcement, the federal government showed its willingness to appropriate 1.5 per cent of our gross national product for research and development.
The federal government introduced a series of incentives designed to urge Canadian firms to invest more in research and development so as to ensure a better co-ordination between the research conducted in universities and in the private sector, as well as to create jobs in the private sector for university graduates and the research field.
Mr. Speaker, all these policies make it possible today for a Canadian firm committed to research and development to pay

only about 20 cents for every dollar invested. Yet, Mr. Speaker, when we realize that after many years, and I make an exception for the ex-leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield), all the others propose a new R and D policy, it seems that R and D is something new for the Conservative party.
Mr. Speaker, there is another policy about which we said very little, that is our policy of assistance to small and medium-sized businesses as stated by the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abott) last June. That policy actually implemented many recommendations made by the president of the Association of Small and Medium-sized Businesses, Mr. Bullock. This is so true that a few weeks after our announcement, he wondered whether he was going to be asked to run as a Liberal candidate, and he would probably have been tempted to accept.
With the announcement of that policy, we agreed to tax rebates, we exempted from all federal taxes the first $50,000 of manufacturing production for each business, we agreed that family businesses, small and medium-sized, average their income over several years and be exempt from capital gains tax up to $200,000, if the business was sold to the children and grandchildren. In fact, we were accepting the major recommendations submitted by chambers of commerce, by pressure groups and particularly by Mr. Bullock's group.
Mr. Speaker, in August of this year, our government went a little further by announcing budget cuts to the tune of some $500 million for the current fiscal year, and of some $2 billion for the next one. Of course, there were members opposite who suggested that the Prime Minister had just become aware, that he had just discovered the way, a little like the third way in Quebec. If we made a mistake in the announcements we issued in August, it concerns not the accuracy of what we said but simply perhaps the form or format we chose. And I shall let the experts in communications pass judgment and do whatever analysis they require.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that our Prime Minister, no, I am not convinced, but I know for a fact that if our Prime Minister chose the month of August to announce a series of budgetary cuts after looking at the results of studies on the industrial sectors of Canada, after due consideration at the cabinet and subcommittee levels, and also in the Liberal caucus, it became clear that with the programs of industrial adjustment which had been studied by the cabinet, and approved in principle as for as their contents were concerned, it was necessary, because of their importance, to decide on further cuts elsewhere. With respect to the opposition members who have been announcing programs all through the summer, we know very well that they could only have picked them up from documents which some civil servants presumably fed up with the Liberals might have lost inadvertently. On that matter, as the Prime Minister said, there may be a lot more imagination in the critics raised by the Leader of the Opposition against us than in the quality of the programs that he developed by himself.
October 30, 1978

Mr. Speaker, in the economic field, I think that this government acted as a responsible and truly liberal government, because while we undertook some reforms, remedial action and adjustment programs, we always kept in mind that, being Liberals, we must always make sure that our resources will be honestly and equitably redistributed amongst all Canadians, and not in the manner described in the Mortgage Follies article published in the Globe and Mail of October 3, 1978, dealing with the mortgage program proposed by the Progressive Conservative party. If the Conservative members want to talk about the redistribution of wealth, I am prepared to answer any of their questions after my speech, and I will probably be able to teach them something on this matter. Even in your own province, there would be room for a better redistribution of wealth, for I know western Canada better than you know Quebec.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Like Mr. Horner!


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Yes, Crowfoot is a constituency I know well; in fact, I like both the riding and the minister. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Liberal party can be proud, and its members can carry their head high. The Liberal party holds a record in the economic field which few other governments, amongst our neighbours, amongst industrialized countries, may boast of. This is evidenced by the fact that with a population of 23 million and a country like ours, we have been able to achieve the performances which are reflected in the statistics.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to deal with the constitutional issue, one which of course is at the centre of all discussions in the three-day period we are living now, the first day having ended at about six o'clock. Like most Canadians, I listened to the first reports of commentators and political experts who analysed the first day of discussions of the federal-provincial conference on the future of Canada and on the constitutional changes.
I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little confused because I had to go by those reports because I was unable to listen to the speeches of all the provincial premiers. From bits and pieces of speeches and reports, especially those by Englishspeaking commentators, I had the impression that the Prime Minister had behaved like a perfect jackass throughout the day, that he had lacked leadership. But when we turned to the French channel, we heard someone say that the Prime Minister had been outstanding. So I think we will have to wait for the eleven o'clock news to have the story from both sides. However, from the little I have heard about what has been said today, one question comes to my mind: we had, gathered in this forum, the ten provincial premiers and the federal Prime Minister, that is the eleven Canadians who are or should be the most experienced men on matters related to the future, the possibilities and the constitutional changes to be made in this country.
Mr. Speaker, after witnessing the conduct of some, after listening to interviews given by some premiers, I wonder if they
The Address-Mr. B. Loiselle
realize that half of a country rests on the common will of its citizens and depends first and foremost on the choice of people of any language and culture to bring together their diversity, their skills, their heart and soul to live as a nation. The other half, Mr. Speaker, rests of course on economic and geographic reasons and one can prove, depending on the time and place, that reasons which were relevant ten years ago on economic grounds are less so today. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing that does not and will not change in any country of the world is the common desire to have a country and that desire is lacking in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when one sees provincial premiers getting prepared for a conference in Regina to stonewall the federal government, one with natural resources, one with tariffs, another with off-shore resources and yet another using who knows what else, so they all say, like the Conservative leader, that they have come to a consensus, that they are all mad as hell. That Mr. Speaker, is the easiest thing to do. The problem is to arrive at some common denominator. The people from Alberta who are sitting here, my new friends whom I have learned to know since becoming a member of this House, there was a time when they needed the resources from the east to develop. Now it is us easterners who are asking them to show some heart and reason and help our economy. Indeed tomorrow if the wells dry up, they will have to live off their industrial development. Even the newly elected economists on the other side will not be able to deny such an obvious thruth.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not in this country define once and for all our willingness and reason for our staying together, or if we follow the Tory leader's philosophy and strip away most of the federal government's power, then I prefer being a separatist Quebecker. Because the day the federal government becomes a dead weight, Tory style-. What do you want, we might as well be Quebeckers, Ontarians, and westerners above all else. We will meet from time to time at the Calgary Stampede, but we will look after our own business. We would not thus take advantage of the benefit of the whole community because the country was made up of people who once shared common ideals, ideals of freedom and greatness throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker, ideals to build a country which would be envied by all humanists in the world. That challenge has been taken up by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has been trying to explain it to us for the past ten years, but we refuse to budge. It would be more embarrassing to pass a bill of rights which would compel Canadians to show some openmindedness. Would it be more annoying for a premier of British Columbia who would not be much embarrassed if suddenly his fellow citizens wanted to vote against him as a result of the bill of rights? It would be better to restrict ourselves to a provincial charter as suggested by our premier, Mr. Levesque, but at least we know why he says so while we are not so sure about the others. However, Mr. Speaker, rather than enforce a bill of rights which would be included in that constitution as it is in most countries, we say: Let us have

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. B. Loiselle
provincial charters. We are so much more familiar with our own environment and our own people; we are so much closer to them. However, Mr. Speaker, even Quebec separatists recognize that this country is useful for economic reasons. The proof is that they go on their knees to negotiate an economic partnership. And there are the other provinces; some of them assume a very proud attitude, but they will come to their senses sooner or later, and if Canada is a valid concept for economic reasons, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is also a valid concept for humanitarian reasons or simply for the evolution of the human race.
Mr. Speaker, I see my colleague for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on the other side. If this man can still live in French and express himself in excellent French as he does, could we not attempt to enable more Alberta citizens to have the same privilege for self-development as this man has? Could we not aspire to this, Mr. Speaker? In fact, when we create barriers which are much more psychological than real, it is of all this that we are depriving ourselves in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who has at least the courage to say that we must maintain a strong central government in our country. Mr. Speaker, a strong central government does not necessarily mean a government which continually invades provincial jurisdiction, but rather a government which still has at its disposal the means to take action when necessary.
Can anyone think that it would be feasible for Canada to have ten monetary policies? Mr. Levesque himself has just replied to this question. Would it be possible to have ten customs policies in Canada? Mr. Levesque himself has just replied to this. Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to have ten energy policies in Canada? I hope that the Conference Board has studied this issue. Mr. Speaker, there is a long list of matters as basic as these three where it is unthinkable to divide the decision-making process. This is why our government has undertaken a review-


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


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Shymko) on his maiden speech tonight. He distinguished himself and the people of Parkdale, who are to be congratulated on their wise choice. I look forward to his further contributions to our debates and to working with him in the months and years ahead on the other side of the House.
I should also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address, the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appol-loni) and the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard). I must confess, though, that that was so long ago that I have forgotten the details of what they said. A lot of water has flowed under
the bridge since then, but I do recall there was a lot more substance in their speeches than in the Speech from the Throne.
Indeed, it was a strange Speech from the Throne. And it has been a strange debate. The traditional approach is for the government to introduce by way of the Speech from the Throne its legislative agenda for the coming session. It lays out the plans it hopes to implement. The role of the opposition is to examine the government's proposals and to criticize them where they call for criticism. Members on the government side support the government. This time, though, we were given a completely vacuous Speech from the Throne. There was nothing in it, not a fresh idea. Then we had a speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) containing positive proposals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -while from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) we heard two full hours of criticism. We make no secret of the fact that we are practising to become the government, but I am surprised that the Prime Minister would demonstrate so openly that he was practising to be in opposition.
The Prime Minister proved again that he is a great Thespian, a great actor. He is long on style and short on substance. By a selective use of statistics he would have us believe that Canada's economy outperforms any other in the world. He sounded like someone from the Flat Earth Society trying to prove the world was flat. Nearly all the statistics he used were inaccurate, misleading or designed to disguise the truth. Since then a large number of editorialists and contributors to the media generally have drawn attention to this, while the results of the by-elections have shown that the voters had made that observation as well.
If our economy is performing better than any other in the world, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, why is our currency under such pressure? Why are people selling their Canadians dollars just as fast as they come into their hands? The Prime Minister would have us believe that Canadian dollars are the most coveted currency in the world because we have the strongest economy in the world. That is the kind of story he tries to tell us.
In his opening remarks the Prime Minister gave us a little psychology lesson. Recalling his earlier training, he said that the human mind has three facilities: memory, imagination and intelligence. He went on to demonstrate a very selective memory and a vivid imagination, and he tried to demonstrate that this House and this country lack the intelligence to see through his specious arguments. The great actor he is, he simply is not able to prove that the world is flat or that Canada's economy is out-performing the rest of the world.
I do not have the time to dwell on the many-faceted examples of misleading, total dishonesty and inaccurate information on the part of the Prime Minister in this debate. Nor do I have time to dwell on all of the reasons why the Trudeau government has mismanaged our economy. I want, rather, to deal with the questions which fall within my area of responsibility in this party, namely, the question of government spend-

October 30, 1978

ing and, in particular, government cutbacks. These subjects have been much in vogue lately.
This is a public issue. It started, I suppose, when the Prime Minister returned from Morocco. Prior to that, as a couple of people have indicated, he was "Schmidt-en" by the need to do something. He commandeered an hour or half an hour of prime time television and announced to the world that the government was going to cut back. He announced that to many of his ministers, who were quite surprised to find out that they were committed to take certain action about which they knew nothing. Then on September 8 we were given some details, finally, as to what these so-called cuts were supposed to be.
Since then we have seen some backing off on the part of many government departments, but the net result has been an escalation of public debate on government spending and on the amount of resources the government utilizes within our economy and, quite frankly, one of the most encouraging things which has happened recently has been the development of an attitude on the part of the population whereby people are sincerely and genuinely asking for less government.
Their voices are being heard. That is a position which my party and I have advocated for a long time, so naturally we feel encouraged by that sympathy for our view from the public.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not in Saskatchewan.


Harvie Andre: Members of the New Democratic Party, of course, advocate just the opposite. They advocate more government, and I am sure that they feel that this view on the part of the public regarding less government, less involvement in the economy and less spending is a cosmic occurrence and a temporary aberration which will surely go away in time.
I do not think that is the reality of what is happening because it is evident to me, to people in my constituency, to people in other parts of the country and to people who have examined the record of the last decade, that governments cannot cure all problems. Over the last decade the view has been that any problem, be it economic or social, can be solved, given enough resources to be brought to bear and given good and well-motivated people with enough money. That was the approach which was taken, but it did not work. Government attempts over the last decade to redistribute income have, by and large, failed, as we have been reminded by the Council on Social Welfare here in Ottawa.
Governments over the last decade have taken on more and more responsibilities. They have been doing more and more, but they have not been doing well. The public is aware of that now and is very concerned about the lack of democratic control over spending. People have recognized that parliament has no control over the tax money which is being spent. People are now coming to appreciate that the cabinet has no control over the amount of money being spent. That is because of the style of the present Prime Minister, and it will change with a new prime minister next spring.
Part of this problem has to do with the sheer size of government and the resulting complexity. It is absolutely
The Address-Mr. Andre
important that we bring spending under control because, quite frankly, governments in Canada are now spending more money than the people are willing to provide. Empirical evidence for that is everywhere. Recently I read an article which knowledgeably estimated that the so-called underground economy in this country may account for 35 per cent of the total economy. Up to 35 per cent of the economy is being handled in a non-reportable and non-reported cash sense. People are using paper money. The barter system is being used to get beyond the reach of the tax collector. People resort to using hard cash as opposed to writing cheques and keeping books. They are doing that to avoid the tax assessor. People resort to barter because barter transactions are not taxable. They should be taxable, but cannot be traced.
Knowledgeable people estimate that these kinds of dealings may account for 35 per cent of our economy, and that figure is growing. That is a clear indication that a very large percentage of our population is simply unwilling to pay any more taxes. We cannot tax people more than they are willing to pay. Therefore, over an extended period of time governments cannot spend more than people are willing to pay.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Like Ontario medicare fees.


Harvie Andre: The size and complexity of government means that large amounts of money will be spilled, and they are. A few days ago we were told that $142 million in UIC funds have been misspent. I think it was in the Montreal Gazette and I read an editorial today saying that that is only 4 per cent of all the funds handled by the UIC. It is a variation of the "what's a million" theme. It is only $142 million, but $142 million is a lot of money. Granted, it is only a small percentage of the whole, but it is a lot of money, and the individual Canadian taxpayer who might feel some conscience about seeking a tax avoidance scheme or who might not be paying taxes because he is engaging in underground economic activity finds that his qualms are dissipated immediately when he reads in the newspaper that the government has mismanaged UIC funds to that extent, when he reads that 16 per cent of civil servants are over-classified and therefore overpaid, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) takes his friends to football games at a cost of $8,000, or reads about any of the assorted examples of government waste of taxpayers' money.
That has contributed substantially to this reluctance on the part of people to pay for government expenditures. The classic response to this circumstance of governments throughout history is to increase the number of tax collectors, and that is exactly what the Government of Canada has done. Between 1968 and 1977 the number of employees of the Department of National Revenue, the tax collectors of this country, went up from 15,500 to 23,600, a 52 per cent increase.
The money spent by government-the amount actually declared is 42 per cent of the gross national product-is not available to the private sector. It is not available for other productive purposes, and that is a reality. That is something we must face up to. Government spending is not productive. I am not saying it is not useful, but it is simply not productive. It

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Andre
does not go into the generation of the goods and services which are part of our productive economy.


Bob Rae: They provide a service.


Harvie Andre: Of course they provide a service, but it is a service for which people are becoming unwilling to pay. A service is productive only if there is a customer who is willing to buy it, and when it costs 42 per cent of the gross national product, people become unwilling to pay for it. The evidence to substantiate that is everywhere.
Another effect of levying taxes beyond people's willingness to pay is a reduction in growth productivity. For example, an electrician who wants to build a rumpus room in his home for $6,000 might have to earn $10,000 pre-tax. If he builds it himself, it will cost $4,000 in materials. Therefore, he only needs to earn an additional $6,000 in order to have $4,000 after tax to do the job himself. The net result of that is that a carpenter loses $2,000 in salary, a net loss of revenue to the tax department of $2,000, and a loss of revenue to the government of $2,000.
Our present level of spending and taxation affects business decisions. Businessmen now make decisions on the basis of tax implications rather than other economic considerations. Investments are approached from the point of view of how much the tax load can be reduced by making an appropriate investment, rather than how it will affect the number of jobs and the growth of the company. After tax remuneration becomes the goal of people in unions and professions. Their goal is the actual amount they receive for the service performed. The service is immaterial; it is after tax remuneration which concerns them. Those pursuing that goal are stating categorically that they are unwilling to accept the tax load as part of their responsibility. The clear message is: they are unwilling to pay the taxes.
The other consequence of the disparity between government spending and people's willingness to pay is that it is impossible to reduce the deficit in a satisfactory manner. The raising of tax rates in order to raise more revenue is self-defeating. It results in less revenue. The people faced with the tax loads continue to borrow to finance the deficit. That merely results in greater problems for the future. There is the problem of having to pay back eventually and to sustain the interest charges and carrying costs on the borrowed funds.
Recently the country resorted to printing money as a policy option, which results in inflation. It offers temporary relief and growth in the economy, but over time it aggravates unemployment problems and causes serious consequences to the economy. The traditional Keynesian approaches of trying to spend oneself into prosperity do not work. We should address ourselves to this problem. We must close the gap between taxes and spending, working from both ends.
Another aspect of large government spending is the involvement of government in the economy and the effect of the sheer size of it. Last February the Minister of State (Small Busi-

ness) (Mr. Abbott) introduced the Paper Burden Office. He quoted statistics from an American study which indicated that the effective paperwork produced by the American government cost approximately $500 per citizen. Taking all levels of government into consideration, our government is larger on a per capita basis than that of the United States, and it is reasonable to assume that that estimate is equally applicable in this country. Indeed, the minister stated that it was his view that the indirect cost of government forcing people to fill out forms, apply for permits for every activity, take out licenses and react to the demands of government, is approximately $10 billion. That is the cost of the intrusions of big government into the private sector by way of the demands it makes. The present estimate is that Canadian governments account for 42 per cent of the gross national product. If the indirect costs of government are added on, which cost is imposed upon our economy, and if government tax is defined as all expenditures resulting from government action, then surely it is obvious governments are responsible for far more than 50 per cent of the g.n.p. in a direct and indirect sense.
Indeed government spending is one of the most crucial problems we must address ourselves to if the economy is to work in the 1980s, and if the one million unemployed are to be put to work. There appears to be a public will in Canada to support endeavours to find ways to reduce the over-all level of spending. The Liberal party has been true to its flexible principles, has acknowledged its view in public, and apparently has launched itself on a path of reduced government expenditures. I say "apparently" because a lot was said on August 1 and September 8 which was not factual.
On September 8 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) announced the details of spending cuts. Included were cuts to the Farm Credit Corporation of $23 million, to CMCH of $200 million, to the Export Development Corporation of $240 million, to the Federal Business Development Bank of $22 million, and under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act of $49 million. The supposed cuts totalled $534 million. They were not cuts at all, they were bookkeeping changes. The government indicated to the Farm Credit Corporation, CMHC, Export Development Corporation and others that they would not receive capital advances from the Department of Finance, but that they would have to go to the market and borrow those funds directly.
Because of that, these entries no longer appear in the blue book estimates which we receive each year. They no longer appear as government spending, and they are claimed to be cuts. They are no such thing. They represent no change in the operations of Crown corporations; they represent a change in the bookkeeping entries. If a private company attempted to make such changes in its accounting practices, it would be called to task by the stock exchange. The tax deductions claimed by a similar method for this current fiscal year amounted to over $1 billion. They were nothing but bookkeeping or accounting changes. They had nothing to do with cuts whatsoever.
October 30, 1978

The danger cannot be underestimated. The electorate will not be fooled because we will make sure they are informed. The danger is that too many people and organizations accept government figures as fact. In its latest report the Economic Council of Canada accepted the Treasury Board statements of government spending as fact. Those were the figures which they applied in order to arrive at recommendations for the future. Those numbers are wrong because the basis of determination has been changed. The government has disguised some of its spending. When the Economic Council of Canada and others engaged in the business of analysing our economy use numbers which are produced by the Treasury Board as true and factual estimates of government spending, they use the wrong data because the bases are changing from year to year. So they are bound to reach the wrong conclusions.
I think it behooves me in the last five minutes, and I will not be long, to outline briefly what can and should be done. First and foremost, in order truly to bring government spending under control and to bring growth level to a reasonable point, we must have more honesty and openness about government spending. This is not a unique or original idea. That is part of a recommendation of the C. D. Howe Research Institute policy analysis and report of 1975. Three years ago that institute recognized that one of the key contributors to this tremendous increase in government spending could be related to the government's not being honest and open about its programs and plans. This is an absolutely essential first step to providing control in respect of government spending.
We have many examples of the things governments are doing. We must examine some of the things governments are doing in order to determine if in fact the private sector could not be doing those same things, to see if in fact there could not be some rationalization, and to see whether some activities in which the government is now engaged, and perhaps has been engaged properly so in the past, should no longer be done by the government.
I am reminded of a story of a few years ago which illustrates the point I am trying to make. Someone examined the public accounts and discovered that the Department of Agriculture was making an annual grant to a horse racing stable owned by E. P. Taylor, a man of some means. Someone asked why E. P. Taylor, a very wealthy man, was receiving a grant from the Department of Agriculture. It turned out this was being done under an old program established in 1910, or thereabouts, to permit the development of better cavalry horses. Fortunately that program was brought to an end.


An hon. Member:: It was an effort to provide a stable economy!


Harvie Andre: I wonder how many more such examples there are on the books. I am sure there are many. The proposal of this party is that we institute a sunset law under which all programs of government would automatically be subjected to a detailed and thorough review on a regular basis. There are
The Address-Mr. Andre
scores of things governments are doing which in the first instance were very appropriate for governments to do, but which are now no longer appropriate and in fact should be turned over to the private sector. I am sure that among the 384 Crown corporations, at last count-and probably there are more than 400 now because the number is increasing at a rate of three a month-we could find some whose activities could either be discontinued or turned over to the private sector.
I think it is about time we assessed the real indirect costs of government, an example of which is the $10 billion resulting from the government putting demands upon the private sector. A sneaky thing which has been happening recently, and which is of great concern, is the way in which governments have been imposing additional costs. One example comes to mind regarding drilling in the high Arctic. The Department of the Environment, for good and valid reasons, has said that prior to such drilling the companies must conduct environmental assessments. There is good and valid reason for that, but that involves a cost; in essence a tax. No one has done a cost-benefit analysis of that requirement to determine whether the benefits achieved from that expenditure are in fact worth the effort. That is just one of scores of examples.
What the United States terms "deregulation" is a policy that must certainly be adopted in this country. We must engage in systematic deregulation and an examination of the demands the government makes upon the private sector. We must make a systematic check of the tests, permits and licensing policies which now exist. All these things should be subjected to a cost benefit analysis in order that we can determine whether the benefits produced are in excess of the cost.
We must also restore democratic control over spending. The former leader of my party, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), made an excellent address about a year and a half or two years ago to Mount Allison University regarding the dangers to our democracy of a continuation of the type of growth we have experienced in recent years. If we are so shortsighted as not to recognize the potential dangers, so eloquently articulated by the hon. member, then we will be shortchanging our successors, our children and their children, to a very great degree. Because what we will be leaving them by way of a legacy will not be democratic, or a parliamentary democracy of the type we now know. Thus, we must give parliament more control over government spending. We must have more honesty from government in respect of spending and taxation, and we simply must stop deceiving the public. We must be more open and honest, and possibly during the throne speech debate or during-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to imform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am speaking only for and on behalf of the people in my riding who have spoken with me in the last few weeks, but rather for all Canadians when I say tonight, in the closing minutes of this debate, that by not calling an election when he

October 30, 1978
The Address-Mr. Grafftey
should the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has deprived the people of the opportunity of getting rid of the worst government we have had in this country since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: If there is a worse government, my God, show me. I repeat, this is the worst government since confederation. I am reminded of an old man of 93 years of age who lives in a small town in my riding. He approached me the other day and said: "Heward, I have always voted the Liberal ticket. I am what you call a red, red Liberal. I have never liked you guys, the Progressive Conservatives, but the next time out, even though my ancestors may roll over in their graves, and I really do not like doing it, I intend to vote the Tory ticket in order to help you guys get rid of the worst government we have had since confederation."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: I know they do not like to hear this, Mr. Speaker, but that is what the people are saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: They are saying that this is the worst government since confederation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: You better get back on your own side of the House where you belong, because this is going to get rough.
When I heard the Prime Minister this afternoon at the constitutional conference say that this country was divided and regionalized at it never has been before, I was reminded of the fact that some ten years ago the people of Canada voted for that prime minister with a high degree of expectation. They thought that he would be the great unifier. Something went wrong in the last ten years and the Prime Minister attempted to pretend today at that conference that he had nothing to do with that.
I am reminded of a president of the CNR who appeared before a committee of this House about 12 years ago. He spent about an hour and a half telling us what a mess the CNR was in, yet for the 15 years immediately preceding he had been the president. I asked him a rhetorical question. I said he was telling us that the CNR is in a mess, yet he had been the president for 15 years. This sort of thing could only happen in public life. I gingerly asked where he had been for the past 15 years.
If we have record unemployment, record inflation, a plunging dollar and division in this country, where, sir, has the Prime Minister been for the last ten years? This is why the people have said time and time again that this is the worst government we have had and they intend to vote Tory. I know these people voted Liberal in the past because I do not get elected by not knowing who votes Liberal and who votes Tory.

This old gentleman, I can promise you, never voted anything but the red Liberal ticket.


An hon. Member:: He is senile.


William Heward Grafftey: I dare the hon. member to come and tell him that he is senile. He has all his marbles and he is not voting for the Liberals the next time; he wants to get rid of you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: After I heard the news that the Prime Minister was not going to call an election, I thought that surely to God there would be something dynamic in the Speech from the Throne, that it would be laden with positive, fighting economic and social measures to get this country moving again.
I am sure hon. members opposite would say that I have been around here too long, and they are not going to like what I am about to say, and that is that if that was not the worst throne speech I have heard in my 20 years, I will eat my hat. It was easily the worst, the damndest document of generalities, at a time when the Canadian people were looking for leadership and positive economic measures to get the economy going; but instead the four million to five million low income people of Canada have been kicked once again. Canadians were looking for social legislation that had some meaning, but what did they get? They got the most general motherhood document I have ever seen in my life. Can anyone name me one significant thing outlined in that document-just one? I certainly did not hear any named during the throne debate either, because there was nothing to name.
Hon. members opposite are going to say, "Wait for our positive legislative package that is to be brought forward independent of that throne speech." It was not really a throne speech in the true tradition of the throne speech. I can think of past Liberal governments that were really serious vis-a-vis socioeconomic legislation, but 1 am sure that members opposite are going to have a pretty good time defending this document.
We are now told by the leader of the government to wait for the legislative package. I respectfully submit that no matter what the package is going to be in the weeks and months ahead, it will be too late to have any real, concrete effect at the grass roots level, because of the mess that this worst government since confederation has plunged the country into. The record is there-a fallen dollar, one million unemployed and inflation. Has there ever a worse economic situation?
As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has said that the country is divided today as it has never been divided before. Where have members opposite been for the last ten years, sitting complacently on their hands and doing nothing?


Some hon. Members:: Time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty duty pursuant to special order made
October 30, 1978

October 20, 1978 to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put any question to dispose of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The question is, therefore, on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion? Motion (Mrs. Appolloni) agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, in accordance with Standing Order 58:
That this House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 31, 1978