1979-10-18

[Stage Direction]
[English\

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the sharp increase in the cost of living announced today of 9.6 per cent, the highest since last May, an increase which reflects increases in the cost of oil and natural gas and in interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans):
That this government be condemned for its intention to increase the price of gasoline and fuel oil by some 30 per cent and for its interest rate policy, which are causing hardships for consumers, small business people and Canadians generally.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the total absence of a regional economic development strategy in the Speech from the Throne, and the stated objective of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) when he was in opposition that regional development would be central in his party's economic policies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of State for Economic Development, sitting in the other place, be removed from the inner cabinet and his chairmanship of the economic development committee and be replaced immediately by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the hon. member for Central Nova.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the recent conflicting statements both inside and outside the House by Conservative cabinet ministers on the trucking affair, and in view of the serious constitutional question arising from the intervention by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and a possible prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act and, finally, in view of the complete lack of understanding on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) of the serious nature of this question, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call upon the Prime Minister to remove from his cabinet the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Minister of Justice pending a comprehensive inquiry into these very serious matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of this House to introduce an urgent and important motion.
In view of the exceptional work she has done for 30 years to the most disinherited people of our planet, and in view of the universal recognition which was given yesterday to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who was awarded the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and
326

October 18, 1979
the Islands, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald):
That the House of Commons send a congratulatory message to the new recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who was granted this honour for the great and exceptional services she has given to humanity.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the considerable degree of collaboration involved in the presentation of this motion, I hope the House will forgive me if I again issue a caveat about using Standing Order 43 for congratulatory motions. I shall not disallow the present motion, however; it is obvious there is a great deal of agreement with regard to it. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to propose a motion which I hope will receive unanimous consent.
In view of the fact that a tornado devastated parts of Oxford, Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk counties in southern Ontario on August 7 last, causing a total of $60 million in damage to crops, orchards, livestock, barns, homes, equipment, and so on, of which $20 million was uninsured, and in view of the fact that the federal government will not or cannot contribute to a disaster fund until the provincial government has contributed a sum equal to the total population of that province-a very unfair and archaic scheme-I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That the federal government introduce legislation which would allow it to declare areas devastated by natural elements as natural disaster areas which would be eligible for direct federal relief funding in addition to any other funding.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 permit the introduction of this motion for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to seek the unanimous

consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
On October 28, an order in council passed by the previous government which delayed a planned reduction of VIA Rail daily transcontinental passenger train service along the CNR main line in northern Ontario will expire. When the order in council was passed, the Canadian Transport Commission suspended hearings on the planned reduction in service which were to be held in communities along the CN main line including Capreol and Sioux Lookout. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
That this House urge the Minister of Transport to extend the order in council so as to further postpone implementation of the final plan for western transcontinental passenger service in order that extensive hearings may be held by the Canadian Transport Commission, especially in those communities between Capreol and Winnipeg on the CNR main line which will be most affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion can be put to the House for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the growing dissatisfaction of the people in the Quebec City area with the quality of services provided by Cablevision Nationale Ltee, a dissatisfaction heightened by the strike of the company's employees which for several weeks now has drastically curtailed cablevision services to most people in the Quebec City area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet):
That the House ask the Minister of Communications to make the necessary representations to the CRTC so that the federal organization will strongly intervene to bring Cablevision Nationale Ltee to abide by their commitments to the people of the Quebec City area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 18, 1979


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker,
I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that I do so on an appropriate day, since it is 50 years ago today that people actually became people.
In view of a report by the National Council of Welfare that the poorest of all Canadians are elderly widows who worked hard all their lives but who had little attachment to the labour force because of child-rearing responsibilities, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery);
That the House request the Prime Minister to urge his friend the Premier of Ontario to withdraw his objection to an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan which would allow for a "child care drop-out period" thereby providing most homemakers with non-stop pension coverage.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion may be put to the House only by unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: In moving a motion under Standing Order 43,
I want to see if the circumstances are as urgent and pressing on this side as they are on the other, and if my motion is equally as effective.
In view of the inhibiting effect which the Official Secrets Act appears to have on the government in its attempt to provide more openness, because of the anomaly of professing respect for human rights in other countries while this law permits such cases as that of Dr. Peter Treu, Bernard Maguire and others to exist in Canada, and because this House has a responsibility to the people of Canada to move quickly to remedy this intolerable situation, I move:
That this House recommends that a parliamentary standing or select committee be forthwith given an order of reference to review the terms of the present act, including a study of such recent cases as that of Dr. Peter Treu and The Toronto Sun and to report proposals for suitable changes to the Official Secrets Act, and that no claim of Crown privilege be allowed to limit the extent of inquiry by the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion, seconded by Mr. Nowlan. Does the House adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wish to follow up the line of questioning which was begun yesterday on the so-called preference of the Government of Canada for the Foothills' pipeline project.
The Prime Minister made clear in his answers yesterday that it was clear to the government of the United States and clear to the Government of Canada what the preference was throughout the summer. I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister a statement made by his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on August 23 of this summer-or perhaps the beginning of the fall-in which to the question, "Is Canada going to have to re-endorse the Foothills' proposal," the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources replied:
Well, 1 think the position that we are taking as a new government is that we are going to review the alternatives and I simply think it s premature to indicate a position on the matter now.
That was August 23, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could not indicate a position of the government on this matter. In the light of this fact, will the Prime Minister now admit that the first occasion that the Government of Canada made its position known to the government of the United States was on September 28, and that his government had lost four months in promoting this very important project?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that a day, or two days before the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the Foothills' proposal had been substantially changed at the request and decision of the Foothills group.
What the minister was responding to was a question in relation to the position of the Government of Canada with regard to a position by Foothills which had recently been changed. The fact remains that throughout all of this there has never been any doubt in the minds of the Americans or of Foothills about the position of the Government of Canada, a position of expressing great concern about the consequences of tanker traffic down the west coast and a position of support for the Foothills' proposal so long as that Foothills' proposal was before the NEB.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 18, 1979
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am really astonished at the answer of the Prime Minister, when the transcript of the interview makes it quite clear that the questioning was not about any alterations in the proposal of the Foothills group but, clearly, as to the preference of the Government of Canada for any route.
The next question that was asked was, what is the status of the former government's commitment? In other words, the minister was being asked whether the present government supports the position taken in April by the former government, or, what is the status of the former government's commitment? The answer was:
Well, 1 think that a new government is going to look at the alternatives and I don't want to suggest in any way that the review itself means that we're either going to change or not change, but I just think that that process obviously has to be . . . that we have a chance to look and have a fresh view of all the alternatives and, accordingly, when that process is over, our position will be made clear to the United States, to the President of the United States.
Will the Prime Minister tell me, now, how it is that the government of the United States could be clear about the preference of the Canadian government, when on August 23 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in an interview that the process was not over and that when the process was completed, the view of the Government of Canada would be made known to the government of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer because the question has now been repeated for three days. The hon. member, the former minister, knows that the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was made in the immediate aftermath, immediately after the change of position by Foothills.
What the opposition is trying to do is to suggest that there was doubt in the mind of Foothills or doubt in the mind of the Americans as to the position of the Government of Canada. There was no doubt at all. They have no evidence that there was any doubt. No doubt has been expressed by the representatives of either the U.S. government or the Foothills group. Indeed, on September 6, when officials of this government met in regular session with officials of the United States, once again the position of support for the Foothills' line of concern about the consequences of tanker traffic was made very clear. The hon. member will have to try some other issue.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to deal with the comment of the Prime Minister when he said that there was no doubt in the minds of the American government as to the position of the Government of Canada. I want to draw to his attention a public document, made public by the United States government last August 24, in which it is stated that the Canadian government had been requested to provide the United States government with its preference. The last sentence of that paragraph from which I will quote reads:
[Mr. Clark.j
To date, no official word has been received from Canada as to preference of possible action on applications.
Will the Prime Minister deal with that now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. That statement was in the immediate wake of the change in the proposal put forward by Foothills.


FOOTHILLS' PROJECT-DATES OF REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S.
Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister if he would supply us with the dates, the times, and to whom his minister or he himself made representations to, in the United States government or to the President of the United States with reference to Canada's position in favour of Foothills.
Would he please honour this House and answer the question and let us know precisely what those dates and times were and who initiated the meetings?


Charles Joseph Clark: The first meeting was on June 6 of the ambassador of Canada with secretary Schlesinger; the next meeting was on June 15 of a representative of the embassy of Canada in Washington with officials of the Department of Interior of the United States; then a meeting on August 3 of the ambassador of Canada and representatives of the State Department of the United States; then a meeting on August 21 of the ambassador of Canada with officials of the State Department and the Energy Department of the United States; then a meeting on September 6, as I have indicated frequently, consisting of consultations on energy, including senior officials in Ottawa; then a meeting on September 21 between the ambassador of Canada and Secretary Duncan; a meeting on September 23 between the embassy of Canada and officials of the State Department; and a meeting on September 28 for delivery of an aide-memoire.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister assure the House that on each and every occasion of the meetings to which he just referred, the government made very, very clear to the United States its preference for the Foothills' proposal?


Charles Joseph Clark: To make the point again, Mr. Speaker, there was never any doubt in the minds of the Americans.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: That is not my question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Having regard to Foothills, there was never any doubt in the mind of the president of Foothills, who said last night on television, and I quote:
We had total support of Premier Bennett in British Columbia, Prime Minister Clark in Ottawa and a number of his cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 18, 1979


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall that at a meeting which he courteously requested following the election, I suggested to him that the cost of living was almost certainly to rise to double-digit proportions, likely by the fall, and proposed three concrete suggestions to deal with it.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House, since now, indeed, we have the return of double-digit inflation with the figures released today, why his government has done a number of things over the summer to raise the cost of living, including jacking up interest rates, but has not done a single thing to reduce the cost of living?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 missed the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the former prime minister.


An hon. Member:: It sounds more like the former Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Consumers who are paying high prices for food, housing and fuel to run their cars will not laugh off this matter as the Prime Minister has just done. 1 should like to ask him concretely, what specific measures did he introduce in the summer which would have the effect of bringing down the cost of living? What action did he take? That will be a short answer. More specifically, what does he plan to do immediately to enable Canadians to cope with double-digit inflation?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take not only the issue very seriously; I take the Leader of the New Democratic Party very seriously. I appreciated the proposals he made to me in a meeting we had earlier. My difficulty was that I do not think he asked a question the first time he was up.
As regards the action the government has taken or intends to take, we regard inflation as public enemy No. 1 of the government. We are proceeding to deal with that problem, principally by bringing the costs of government in Canada under control so that we can remove that significant contribution to inflation and set an example to others in the community.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the 1920s that solution did not affect prices, but it did cause the depression of the 1930s. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since he promised in the election, and repeated it at his first press conference after the
Oral Questions
election, that there would be a $2 billion tax cut for middle and low income Canadians-he reasserted this commitment after the election-will he now tell the House that that will take place in the November budget?
Second, to have some real effect on prices, will he bring in a fair prices commission which will have the authority to roll back unfair price increases?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to bring in a fair prices commission with the authority to roll back prices. Naturally, 1 cannot reveal the contents of the budget before it is presented in this House.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. General Motors announced last week that it would invest some $2 billion in Ontario, and when I asked the Prime Minister about it in the House, he held out to us bright prospects of imminent and substantial investments by General Motors in the province of Quebec. Well, we were all deeply shocked yesterday when we learned that General Motors had asked the federal government to close its file, period. Today, I should like to ask the Prime Minister how he can explain this failure, what he intends to do to ease the legitimate frustration among Quebeckers, and what concrete and short-term action, if any, his government will take to improve the industrial framework of the important area of Canada which is Quebec.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an important issue. We have been equally surprised by this decision of General Motors. That was General Motors' own decision.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENT INVESTMENT PROJECTS IN QUEBEC
Yvon Pinard: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously similar to the Foothills case- private businesses which the government cannot convince to invest in Canada. Since the government seems to be caught off guard, I urge the Prime Minister to overlook the piddling policy of his Minister of Supply and Services and immediately request his Minister of Public Works to order that all major federal projects to invest in Quebec be unfrozen, in order not

October 18, 1979
Oral Questions
only to create hundreds of permanent jobs but also to stimulate the construction industry and to ensure a federal presence which is important at this time in Quebec.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that in the present case, the decision has been made by General Motors. I do not know whether there is any future possibility. I certainly hope so. I hope there will be opportunities for Canada in the future, and if General Motors submits another application for such a development, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be prepared to support such a project. However I must emphasize that this was a decision arrived at due to internal matters at General Motors and not to any other reason.
As to the policy of a federal government presence in the province of Quebec, yes, it is essential, but we have to make sure the projects will really create jobs and establish an economic presence in the province.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT BY AUTO INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the right hon. Prime Minister. Considering the decision made by General Motors, which is very discouraging for Quebec in particular but also for Canada as a whole, and considering the steadily increasing and huge deficit in its balance of payments Canada will apparently have to face this year in relation to auto parts production and car assembling-over $3 billion according to a report which was recently submitted to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce- what does the Prime Minister intend to do and intend to ask his minister in the Senate to do to encourage car companies such as General Motors, Chrysler and Ford to invest more money in Canada, particularly in Quebec and, hopefully, offset the huge deficit Canada will have to face this year in the auto parts trade?


Charles Joseph Clark: I think it is agreed by everyone, Mr. Speaker, by the House as a whole, and it is certainly a policy of the present government, that we should attract good investment here. We were hopeful about a decision to be made by General Motors, and we are disappointed over their decision. We are now examining the situation to see whether the Government of Canada can attract industries in the automotive sector or in other sectors to invest in the province of Quebec.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT ASK GM TO INVEST IN PLANT AT SAINTE-THERESE, QUEBEC
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and ask him whether he intends to meet personally with the heads of the automobile industry

in general and the directors of General Motors in particular, in order to encourage them to invest in Quebec. They have decided not to invest in an aluminum parts-casting project saying they do not need aluminum to achieve their goals, but could the minister meet with the directors of General Motors and encourage them to increase their current investment in Sainte-Therese, to expand their assembling facilities in the province of Quebec in order to compensate for the lack of investments which will hit Quebec in the coming months?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the former minister of regional economic expansion has pointed out, there is a serious imbalance in the automotive industry side which affects the province of Quebec.
I am pleased to be able to report to my friend that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I have already initiated arrangements to meet the president of General Motors on an urgent basis and we are making every effort to make certain that automotive projects are directed to his province, and he can be assured that we will not cease in our efforts to do this.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Given what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has just said, namely that there is a wide gap between Ontario and Quebec in the automobile industry; given the fact that in the aeronautical industry Pratt & Whitney have announced that from now on they would rather turn towards Ontario; given the very generous offer made by the government to GM to induce that company to open a plant in Quebec and the fact that the gap is widening between the two provinces, would the Prime Minister consider broadening the range of federal government measures to help the economy in Quebec and the maritimes, and I refer among other measures to tax breaks, purchases by the government in these provinces and accelerated establishment of government public enterprises in Quebec and in the maritime provinces?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, yes, we can consider the issues from that angle; in particular, the hon. member who asked these questions and government ministers share the same objective, namely, a strong federal presence which could stimulate economic growth, not only in the province of Quebec but in the maritimes as well. We must take our decisions within the framework of the budgetary
October 18, 1979

objectives of the government. The minister is now at a very preliminary stage in studying his budget and I can state that the objectives related to regional development will be one of the concerns surrounding the preparation of the budget.


Pierre De Bané: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the very encouraging statement made by the Prime Minister, considering that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion declared that equal opportunities for all Canadians was one of the priorities of this government, and since he noted himself that the budget of his own department amounted hardly to 0.5 per cent of the government budget as a whole-that is, $600 million out of $50 billion-could the Prime Minister tell the House if his statement means that the next budget might bring a substantial increase?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is too early to make such an interpretation. It is one of our preoccupations. We are trying to find ways to help other departments, not only the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I think that was the spirit of the hon. member's proposal, which is certainly in line with the will of that department to achieve real economic growth in difficult areas.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Transport. I learned this morning from a highly-placed civil servant within his department that the minister received a written briefing from his departmental officials at least two days before the Friday meeting of at least four cabinet ministers, including the Attorney General, recommending that his minister take the position that the Attorney General not proceed with the prosecution at this time in view of the departmental study under way. Yesterday, the hon. Minister of Justice referred outside the other place to a request for a possible delay in any prosecution until the study was completed.
Will the minister table in this House a copy of the written briefing he received, and will the minister confirm to this House that this was, indeed, the position taken by him at the Friday meeting and, if not, what questions he asked and what viewpoint he expressed at that meeting?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's allegations are absolute nonsense.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister table the written briefing that he had; and I ask him again, is
Oral Questions
he prepared to tell this House what viewpoints he expressed at the meeting of Friday morning or, if not, why not?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said earlier, the meeting was for information purposes, and I received the information.


Mr. Olivier:: Open government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I did ask a couple of questions, but I did not keep track of what they were.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBLE PROSECUTIONS-MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS PRESENT AT DISCUSSION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Each time his Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs makes a statement about the infamous meeting, he makes another startling revelation which leaves us with more questions.	.
Yesterday, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that he did not call the meeting but that it was called by the Attorney General, which is even more serious, and the minister also said that he thinks these consultations should continue. In addition to the questions which I asked yesterday,
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since the meeting was called by the Attorney General, whether or not the Deputy Attorney General or a senior official from the Attorney General's department was present and whether any political aides were present at the meeting. Also, what was the interest of the Department of Transport in these meetings between the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know if the Deputy Attorney General or political aides were present, but I will determine that and advise the hon. member. I can say that the meeting was convened by the Attorney General.
In response to the questions asked yesterday by the hon. member, inquiries have been made and I have been informed that in dealing with cases of this kind the Attorney General is unquestionably entitled to obtain information and advice from whatever sources he may see fit, including his colleagues in cabinet.
I am also advised by the law officers of the Crown that the action taken by the Attorney General of Canada was not at all a precedent with regard to the participation of the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport was invited to be present because the matter under consideration involved questions which were pertinent to matters of policy of the Department of Transport and having to do with the jurisdiction of that department over aspects in which the subject matter of the proposed action was involved in western Canada.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that these meetings did not set a precedent. Again I tell the Prime

October 18, 1979
Oral Questions
Minister that in combines cases which deal with large multinational corporations and affect the economy of this country, that was certainly not the practice when I was the minister of consumer and corporate affairs, nor during the reigns of the hon. member for Windsor West and the hon. member for Papineau.
Yesterday, the minister of consumer affairs said that these meetings would continue. In view of the investigation which the Prime Minister is making, and in view of other matters which have come to light, would the Prime Minister consider stopping this kind of meeting at least until the matter is fully investigated? Also, because the Prime Minister believes in open government, and since the justice committee is meeting tonight to be organized, would he not agree this matter should be referred to that committee so that we in this House may know what happened at those meetings, and to clear the air?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, because of the hon. member's request of yesterday, I inquired as to the law and precedents of this matter so that I would have a better idea personally and could communicate to this House as to the propriety of the meeting. The meeting was absolutely proper, with basis in law and basis in precedent. Meetings of this kind have been held before. Naturally, I am not going to order the cessation or stopping of meetings that are absolutely proper. Nor do I propose to refer to a standing committee a matter where there is no question of precedent or legality except in the mind of the hon. member posing it.
I am rather surprised that a suggestion such as this would come from a former minister of the Crown. We will not be put in a position of having ministers answer in the House of Commons questions regarding discussions which they may have had prior to taking a decision and which they have not yet taken.


POSSIBLE PROSECUTIONS-REASON MINISTER OF JUSTICE CALLED MEETING
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I followed the Prime Minister's replies to the questions with a great deal of interest. The hon. gentleman indicated that he received information regarding the matter from law officers of the Crown.
Has the Prime Minister had an occasion to speak with the Minister of Justice since Friday in order to apprise himself directly as to why the Minister of Justice called this meeting, and if he did have a discussion relating to the circumstances leading up to the questions in the House, did the Prime Minister discuss with the Minister of Justice the very sensitive and delicate role he has as Attorney General while a member of cabinet and being charged with the responsibility of initiating proceedings such as these under the Combines Investigation Act which are, in essence, criminal proceedings?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss this matter with the Attorney General of Canada

and the Minister of Justice because there was no need to, because there is no question at all about the propriety or legality of the action which was taken by the minister.


Mr. Ouellet:: No wonder you flunked your law examination.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, in facing a situation of this importance, that the Prime Minister has not decided to discuss this matter with the minister within his cabinet who was primarily responsible for calling this meeting. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he review-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -the precedents in the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister, when he discusses this matter with the Minister of Justice-and I urge him to do so-to bring to the minister's attention, in view of the evident ignorance of that minister, the precedents in the Campbell case. It is a United Kingdom case which has been a cause celebre, dealing with the issues of independence of the attorney general and which has been credited with causing the downfall of the Ramsey MacDonald government in 1924.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will forgo the temptation to refer either to evident ignorance or cause celebre, but I would like to make it clear to the hon. member who has put the question that we have determined the law and the practice, and that the actions of the Attorney General of Canada were in breach of neither the law nor the precedents of the Government of Canada.


PREMIER DAVIS' REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by Premier Davis that he wants a postponement of the decision on the increase in the price of oil, a decision which will be very detrimental to the economies of both Ontario and Canada, is the Prime Minister ready to acquiesce to this request and postpone any decision until after the meeting between the premiers and the Prime Minister himself?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are in active discussions with all the provinces, including a meeting today on energy matters between the minister of energy for Canada and the minister of energy for Ontario.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if he will tell the House whether or not he intends to discuss the
October 18, 1979

matter with Premier Davis, who yesterday complained very bitterly that this decision was not in conformity with the stated policy of the Prime Minister who some time ago said that there will be no decision by his cabinet on these matters without the approval of the provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course we will be discussing the matter with the premier of Ontario. The difference between this government and our predecessor is that this government does discuss questions rationally.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the number of condominium townhouses where owners are abandoning their investment, turning their keys over to the lenders and the lenders are accepting quit claim deeds, giving Canada Mortgage and Housing an enormous number of repossessions, will the minister direct his officials in Canada Mortgage and Housing to cease giving undertakings to insure townhouse condominium mortgages until this surplus and repossession problem is straightened around?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, mortgage insurance underwriting practices obligate the corporation to evaluate individual applications very carefully. However, we will be extremely cautious in getting into this sort of practice until we have studied market conditions. I could not give the hon. member an absolute undertaking that we would cease, but we will be more cautious in pursuing this practice.


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the high interest rates policy of the government, which was left on its doorstep like an abandoned baby by the Liberal party, and that has now grown into a 1,300 pound Sasquatch.
What action does the minister plan to take to prevent Canadian chartered banks from raising the cost of Chargex and Master Charge rates from 18 per cent to 21 per cent?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to take any action. We have a free market economy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The no-action minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and the forces of competition will regulate rates. When, in the twenty-first century, the hon. gentlemen get into power, they can then shut down our banking system with their interference.


An hon. Member:: 1 can hardly wait.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when a member on this side of the House would have referred to that answer as bafflegab and gobbledygook. I do not know what happened to that member; I think he went to sea.
The question I have for the minister is this: Is he telling Canadian consumers that there is nothing the government can do about price gouging, interest rate gouging or the banks excessive profits? What about the fact that banks are now paying tax at a rate of 10 per cent, which is less than a working guy pays earning $180 a week?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not agree that the hon. gentleman's analysis is correct or that the banks are gouging, nor do I agree with various allegations of that nature. 1 believe that the banks are operating in a competitive system. Furthermore, the new banking legislation, which I hope the House is going to pass in jig time, will increase competition in the banking system. I do not agree that there is no ray of hope as far as prices are concerned. There is no "ray" of hope in the NDP; 1 will admit that.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It also comes under his jurisdiction as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The minister has set himself a most commendable goal, to increase Canadian grain shipments this year by 20 per cent. Would the minister advise this House of the shipments to date this year as compared to last? Could he advise whether the five-month strike at the port of Montreal, as well as the unfortunate incident in Vancouver harbour this week, will have any effect on his original estimates?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the latest information that has been provided to me by the Canadian Wheat Board indicates that we are running slightly ahead of last year. For the same period of time we are moving twice as much barley and three times as much rape-seed this year compared to last year.

October 18, 1979
Oral Questions
I want to say that we are down in our deliveries of wheat, which is something of a temporary nature. Elowever, in aggregate terms we are running ahead of last year's delivery for the same period of time.
We are, naturally, all very concerned about the breakdown at the west coast and the accident that occurred there, but I must say the action on the part of all components of the industry-that is, the railroads, the elevator companies, and labour-is commendable. The contingency plans that have been put in place are working very well and we would hope that through this kind of co-operative effort we will be able to minimize the disruption caused by the unfortunate incident.


TRANSPORT
Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, because the closing of the Seaway would dramatically increase the pressure on the grain shipments via the west coast and because all segments of the grain transportation industry have requested that the minister extend the shipping season on the Seaway, has the minister had time to reconsider his decision of the December 15 closing date which was announced last week?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course we and officials of our department are very sympathetic to the suggestions that have been made. Unfortunately, the problem is that we cannot predict the weather.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Now he is blaming the weather.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We have heard that before.


An hon. Member:: The weather is much better this year than last year.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Things are better this year than they were last year, but at times a little unpredictable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We would not be able to make a firm determination on that before the first or second week of December. The problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that on the Montreal to Lake Ontario section of the Seaway we have a number of hydroelectric generating plants. To give a firm commitment and to allow icebreaking facilities to open up the Seaway for an extended season we could endanger the operations of the hydroelectric plants, which could cause brown-outs and energy shortages in that particular area.
It is a very complicated matter. We are looking at it and we will certainly give all support possible to extending it, but we cannot make a firm determination at this point in time.

[ Translation]


REQUEST MINISTER INTERVENE IN DISPUTE AT PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Considering that it is of national importance and urgency to ensure the regular delivery of western grain to the various markets, that the Minister of Transport is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Harbours Board, and that the Minister of Labour has been unable to find a solution to the handlers' strike in the port of Montreal, can he tell the House what he is waiting for before intervening personally in this dispute?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Minister of Transport-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are the Minister of Transport.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -have been commendable in working out this particular dispute. He has been involved.


An hon. Member:: What about the weather?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to tell the hon. member that negotiations are going on and it is my understanding that a tentative agreement has been reached on the matter of wages. There are still a number of items that are up for consideration, but I am pleased to say that progress is reported and we are very optimistic that a satisfactory settlement will be reached very soon.


CALL FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO END STRIKE AT PORT OF MONTREAL
Louis R. Desmarais: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us if he has urged his colleague the Minister of Labour to introduce legislation to solve this conflict?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that would be premature. The fact that negotiations are going on and progress is being made would certainly not necessitate the need for legislation.
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Transport.
Given the fact that the strike has been going on for five months and that a report from the president of the Union of Montreal Harbour Workers indicates that he is willing to
October 18, 1979

Business of the House PRIVILEGE
accept the mediator's report; further, given the fact that a report and talks between government officials and the National Harbours Board recommended special legislation, does the minister intend to state that the Minister of Labour did his job and introduce special legislation to settle that problem which has lasted now for five months when in Vancouver under similar circumstances he tackled the situation two days after the strike had started?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that we superimpose legislation on this particular issue when negotiations are going on that are fruitful. As I indicated, a tentative agreement has been reached on the issue of wages. There are two or three outstanding issues. Negotiations are going on. Progress is, in fact, being made.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister can tell us whether he is going to do something about the high food prices, which went up by 12.9 per cent this year over last, in view of the fact he met with the leader of our party last June and promised that he would reconsider the reintroduction of subsidies on bread and milk that were taken away by the previous Liberal government, which his consumer critic in particular complained about so loudly during the last session. Will he reintroduce those subsidies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that was the proposal of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I did undertake to consider it; we did consider it; we decided not to proceed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have many quotes here made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, when he was consumer critic, as to why they should be reintroduced. In view of the fact the price of bread and cereals went up by 19 per cent this year over last, can the Prime Minister tell us why he has decided not to reintroduce those subsidies which are so badly needed by the ordinary Canadian?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is our view that the action which we can take which will most benefit the ordinary Canadian, to use the hon. member's phrase, is to try to get the Canadian economy under control and growing strongly. We are going to be directing all our energies, as a government, to dealing with inflation, to restoring confidence and to getting the economy going.


MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)-MINISTERIAL ANSWERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD-REPORT BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday 1 undertook to the House to examine the point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in respect to what appeared to be an inaccuracy in Hansard. The hon. member for Burnaby was quite correct; there was an inaccuracy in Hansard reporting in the line to which he referred.
We have determined, through conversations with the Editor and his staff, that the fault does, in fact, lie with the reporter who evidently had misread part of a sentence in transcribing the notes from shorthand into the typewritten transcript.
We have already had some discussions with the Editor and will carry these discussions forward to ensure that the usual high quality of reporting will always be assured to the members of the House. This is one instance of an honest and innocent error, I believe.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your confirmation. The version which 1 indicated to the House was accurate, I believe. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) stated that neither my version nor the printed version was the correct one. I ask Your Honour to confirm that the version which I indicated was correct.
Second, I hope that in no way the Hansard reporter involved will be penalized. It was an innocent misunderstanding, 1 am sure.


Mr. Speaker:: I, of course, can only confirm that with the exception of this one part of a phrase that was referred to yesterday, the rest of the Hansard transcript was completely accurate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to put the regular Thursday question. Before doing so, 1 would like to congratulate the President of the Privy Council on taking over his onerous responsibilities. He always used to regard himself, when he sat at this desk, as a model of co-operation. I assure him I will not attempt to improve upon his performance in the weeks ahead.
Now that we will be at the end of the debate on the throne speech on Friday, may I ask the minister what the business will be for next week, especially Monday?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman, with whom I have had the privilege of working for a number of years, for his kind remarks and the assurances, such as they were, with regard to co-operation as we proceed into this Parliament.

October 18, 1979
Business of the House
As the hon. member indicated, we continue with the throne speech debate today and tomorrow. On Monday, it is my intention to call Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, (Spousal Allowances), standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I give notice today regarding a bill to stand in the name of the Postmaster General, which I will call next, concerning certain postal rates. It is an important matter, rectifying some matters that were let go in procedures that were deemed inappropriate in the last Parliament, and some might say even worse than that.
On Tuesday, October 23, it is my intention to call an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80. According to the order paper, that bill will be introduced by the Minister of Finance a little later. 1 assume that will go through very quickly.
Following that will be Bill C-3, an act respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes. We have been waiting for that for some period of time.
Later in the week we intend to call Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, and Bill C-2, an act standing in the name of the Minister of Labour to amend the Department of Labour Act. There are some tax bills that are the result of the fact that Parliament had its life brought to an end by the call of the general election. These bills arise from the 1978 budget. They have not yet been approved. We regard them as housekeeping matters and I presume they will be proceeded with rather quickly.
In addition, 1 would give notice of a bill with regard to adjusting the accounts of Canada, standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board. We will probably be calling that later in the week. Notice is going on the order paper tomorrow regarding the freedom of information bill. We intend to call that early next week, likely Wednesday. Following that will be the property tax credit bill in the name of the Minister of Finance. We hope that will go through quickly.
I should say that the property tax credit bill, the freedom of information bill and certain other legislation will likely have to await the clean-up of the housekeeping legislation which was left as a result of the failure of the government to call them in the last Parliament. Therefore, we have to wait for those. That may also affect the introduction of a budget. 1 am not prepared to announce a date today.
While I am on my feet, I might mention that later this day the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement on the fiftieth anniversary of the "persons" decision, a very important decision. I would like to have had that statement made now, but through inadvertence, for which I take responsibility, my colleagues the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition were not notified. I apologize to the House. I did not have a chance to speak to my other friends.
1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we could have unanimous consent to revert to statements by ministers at five o'clock in order that
[Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton).J
the Prime Minister can make that statement and the appropriate replies can be given?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this same point of order regarding House business. May I, too, extend congratulations to the President of the Privy Council on his assuming the role as government House leader. 1 am also glad that the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is still a member of the House leaders' club. They have changed their positions. Mine seems to be the same.
Supplementary to the announcements that the President of the Privy Council made about House business, may I ask him two questions? First, as the minister will recall, the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicated yesterday that he has several pieces of legislation respecting veterans, one or two of which I believe are ready. Can he say how soon those pieces of legislation will be introduced, and how soon they will be called for debate and consideration?
As a second question, may 1 ask the government House leader whether there will be legislation during this session to advance the equality of women, particularly in terms of employment and retirement?


Walter David Baker: I cannot give the hon. member a precise date. I can say, though, with some assurance, that it will be brought in fairly quickly. He has mentioned the veterans bill. I have mentioned the freedom of information legislation, the matter of the tax credit and other pieces of legislation which we believe to be important, but which must await the cleaning up of the old budget bills: we cannot advance those pieces of legislation to which we attach some importance until we are sure we can obtain the co-operation which 1 hope will be forthcoming from the hon. gentleman.
With respect to the significance of the persons case, we are looking into some of the other matters the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, but I would ask him to note that the first subject the government intends to call after the debate on the address has ended will be Bill C-6, which is designed to deal with what we feel is an inequity respecting women. I hope that measure will receive relatively early passage and that the hon. gentleman will support us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall deal with Bill C-6 when it is called on Monday. May 1 say to the House leader that he has asked us to let certain matters wait until the tax bills are out of the way, although he himself put half a dozen other measures ahead of the tax bills this morning. 1 therefore suggest that veterans' affairs and women's legislation are just as important as those other items, and that they should be dealt with without waiting for the tax bills to be passed.
October 18, 1979


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Just for the purpose of preparing for the work next week, am I to take it that the first item is to relate to spouse's allowances, and that after its passage the House will turn to consider the borrowing authority bill?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when that is passed the House will be asked to consider an act respecting postal rates, i am assuming that those bills could be dealt with on Monday, since it is a full day. After that we would like to call the bill with respect to the Department of Labour, followed by the labour unions returns bill. On Tuesday we would proceed with the borrowing legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is obviously exceeding all his former expectations if he believes we would get five bills through on Monday. I think he had better come down from those euphoric clouds he has reached on becoming a member of the new government.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act.


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

Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act.


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

Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
_______________________________337
The Address-Mr. Penner BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1979-80

John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Herbert:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the President of the Privy Council say he would be introducing the postal rates legislation today, or is this item not now to be on the order of business for Monday?


Walter David Baker: It is going on to the order paper today. 1 was just advising the House that it would be called on Monday, assuming we get through the other legislation.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, when the clock showed six o'clock last evening, I was about to expand on certain ineptitudes of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp). In the Speech from the Throne, the government promised that measures would be introduced to strengthen the capacity of our two territorial governments to manage their own affairs. With that proposition I am sure all hon. members can agree and subscribe to the idea that in the long run this is a desirable and very commendable goal.
The Yukon's capacity to manage its own affairs is clearly defined, having been done so by this Parliament, in the Yukon Act. Hon. members, however, will look in vain to find mention of any amendments to the Yukon Act in the legislative program which has been tabled in the House by the government. It was only the day before yesterday that the hon. member for Yukon, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Nielsen), who is also the number one adviser to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on Yukon matters, assured a CBC audience in Whitehorse that the government would take no further steps toward self-government in the Yukon without introducing amendments to the Yukon Act.
What this suggests to me is that the government, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Public Works, are beginning to feel a little uneasy and a little uncomfortable about steps already taken. Those steps were serious constitutional changes regarding the

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Penner
Yukon, and leading that territory toward provincehood. The government has taken major steps to move the yardsticks toward what it calls responsible government in the Yukon, and the House should know that the government has already taken these major constitutional changes in that territory.
In a letter dated October 9, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, acting, as he said, pursuant to section 4 of the Yukon Act, directed the commissioner of the Yukon as follows:
You are instructed to request the territorial government leader that he shall constitute and appoint a body known as the cabinet or the executive council-
He then informed the commissioner:
You will not be a member of the cabinet... and will not participate on a day to day basis in the affairs of the cabinet, and council-
Elsewhere in the letter the minister said:
You should advise the government leader that he may use the term premier to describe his office and the term Minister to describe the other members of the (cabinet).
However, and this is the most interesting part of the letter, he cautioned the commissioner with these words:
Until legislative amendments to the Yukon Act are passed, however, these terms should not be used in Territorial legislation or legal instruments.
It does seem rather elementary to point out that any title which one is not entitled to use by law is not a legal title. Indeed, I am told that the leader of the territorial government himself has been sufficiently distressed about this that he has decided on his own not to bother using the title "premier" which the minister would want to confer upon him.
I think we can snicker with some justification at the ineptitude of the minister in conferring provincial titles on territorial leaders and their institutions, but what we cannot take so lightly are the constitutional changes which he attempted to bring about on the strength of nothing more than his own signature. The fact is that the relationship of the Yukon government to the Government of Canada has been altered without the consent of Parliament. Acting under the cloak of section 4 of the Yukon Act, the minister added insult to his constitutional improprieties when he told the commissioner, Mrs. lone Christensen, to pack her bags and move out of the legislative buildings altogether.
Let me refer to the section the minister uses to justify all his actions under law. Section 4 of the Yukon Act reads as follows:
The commissioner shall administer the government of the territory under instructions from time to time given her by the Governor in Council or minister.
Instructions to administer, says the act, but it does not say that the minister has the authority under law to tell the commissioner not to administer at all, which is in effect and in fact what he has actually done. The commissioner, therefore, received her new instructions shortly after learning from the local press that they were on the way to her, and to no one's surprise but to everyone's dismay, particularly the people of the Yukon Territory, Mrs. Christensen promptly resigned.
Whether Mrs. Christensen, a native Yukoner, an immensely popular lady and a good administrator who enjoys the confi-

dence of both the Indian and white communities in the Yukon, felt that she could no longer properly administer a government in which she was no longer even physically present, we do not know. Whether she felt that the Parliament of Canada had instructed her to carry out responsibilities with her council within the normal meaning of the word "administer", which the minister had told her to ignore, we do not know either.
Maybe she felt that Yukoners could not afford full fiscal responsibility until they were able to pay the cost of their own public services. Maybe she was merely disappointed that she, like all Yukoners, was not consulted in the matter, and that is another tragic error this new minister has made so early in his career. He has taken an enormous constitutional step without bothering to come to Parliament to get the authority to do so by amending the Yukon Act, and not bothering to consult the people who are directly affected.
He has taken his advice from whom? Well, certainly from the hon. member for Yukon, the Minister of Public Works, and from the leader of the government in the Yukon. That is who he consulted, and that is the end result of this serious step taken by the minister.


Mr. Epp:: Both are elected, Keith.


B. Keith Penner: We do not know the major points of disagreement between the commissioner and the minister, because when I asked him in this House to tell us what were the major points of disagreement, he would not say. All he would tell us was that his commissioner felt the government was moving the Yukon too quickly along the path to responsible government.
What we do know is that the commissioner could not be faulted for having had at least some of the concerns I have already mentioned. She would have known full well, for example, that historical precedent required the minister and his government to bring forward amendments to the Yukon Act in order to remove her from the deliberations of her council. It must have been common knowledge to a person as wise in the ways of government as Mrs. Christensen that in 1966 the Parliament of Canada specifically repealed a section in the Yukon Act which had previously required the commissioner to sit separate and apart from the council.
Evidently this made no difference to the minister. The fact that he had to come to Parliament to do that did not bother the minister at all, because someone told him that under section 4, by which he could instruct the commissioner how to administer, he could now instruct the commissioner not to administer at all, not to be physically present, not to consult with any committee, nor to consult with elected representatives.
Perhaps the former commissioner was offended at this slight to Parliament, although "slight" is hardly a strong enough word to describe the rearrangement of constitutional relationships without any reference to Parliament. On the other hand, perhaps she was not so jealous of the rights of Parliament, but we here in this House certainly must be. We can only speculate about her attitude to this irresponsible encroachment by a minister of the Crown upon federal jurisdiction. This grasp for
October 18, 1979

power-which is what it is, in plain language-was engineered without her advice and contrary to the direct and substantial federal interest. However, 1 suspect it was the interest of Yukoners which was uppermost in her mind.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: We hear a great guffaw from the other side. The minister is not even aware that this is one of the most respected public figures in the Yukon, and to guffaw when I suggest that what she was expressing was her concern for her fellow Yukoners, all the minister is doing is further revealing to all here today how ignorant he is of the situation.
Nevertheless, let me turn now to the consideration of the minister's instruction to the commissioner regarding financial management. This is something that always concerns members of Parliament-financial management, financial control of money that is raised from the public domain. I am referring here to section 12(3) of the Yukon Act which instructs the commissioner to consult with the territorial finance committee in the preparation of estimates of expenditures and appropriations required to defray the costs of public services.
I suppose that Parliament instructed the commissioner to consult on these matters since, in the present fiscal year, for example, the Yukon derived S23 million, or about 30 per cent of its operating revenues, from Parliament in the form of a deficit grant, and this is not to mention a further $15 million this year in capital grants. All of this $38 million is over and above the grant of about $13 million in lieu of income taxes which the Yukon government will begin to collect itself next year. No wonder Yukoners are worried about their future taxes, and no wonder the Parliament of Canada, which puts money there, wants to have someone consult in the expenditures and appropriations of these moneys.
In any case, the minister, who assured the House that everything he has done was within the terms of the Yukon Act, was not happy with the words of section 12(3) as they stand- he did not like them at all. Therefore, in place of those words of the Yukon Act, he substituted some of his own. They are in the letter. Let me read them. He told the commissioner:
-the cabinet will prepare the estimates initially and then refer them to you.
Nothing could be plainer, more simple or obvious. If the law of the land is to consult, then you have to be physically present and talk about what is going on. If something is referred to you after the fact, and it is just sent over for your approval, then there has been no consultation and the act of Parliament has been violated. The minister does not seem to worry about that: after all he is the minister, he is the authority, he has good advice from the hon. member for Yukon and he does not need to worry about any of the niceties, any of the legal intricacies.
I am told that one of the effects of this change in wording is to relieve the commissioner of any participation in future discussions with officials in Ottawa as to the amount of the annual deficit grant required. Here again, it might not be right
The Address-Mr. Penner
to say that this particular liberty of the minister's raised the indignation of the commissioner, but since it is a clear contradiction of the words and meaning of a statute of Parliament, it should certainly arouse the indignation of this House.
Apart from that, the question of financial arrangements between the two levels of government strikes at the very heart of this issue. Not only do Canadian taxpayers foot nearly 60 per cent of the bill for Yukon public services through federal agencies and the territorial government, but neither the member for Yukon nor the leader of the territorial government seem to be interested in responsible government, if responsible government means that you have to raise your own tax revenues.
The hon. member for Yukon is on record as subscribing to the view that the annual deficit grant which escalates every year is the birthright of Yukoners, not to be diminished in any way by territorial tax revenues such as those to be derived from the Alaskan Highway gas pipeline. I think 1 have an accurate quote of his words spoken before the pipeline committee. He said:
We see no reason why the deficit financing, to which we have been entitled over the years, should now be changed merely because the Yukon is going to be enjoying greater revenues as a result of a good tax deal.
The opinions of the territorial government leader are not far different, if one can judge by his comments only a few days ago, because he told Yukoners in a radio broadcast that new financial arrangements between Ottawa and the Yukon had not been discussed in the course of his half-dozen meetings with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about the commissioner's new instructions. There was no talk at all about her role, her responsibility to participate in the finance committee. The leader of the territorial government lamented, "We are still a colony of Canada". He went on to say that the minister recognized this, and therefore financial arrangements would not change until responsible government had been achieved.
Responsible government would be achieved, he said, on the day that the Yukon territorial government did not have to submit a budget to the commissioner for approval. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that day will not arrive until the Yukon government finds itself in a position to raise its own revenues from its own taxes for its own operations.


An hon. Member:: Just like Newfoundland.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member is now talking about equalization payments, trying to fog the issue. Newfoundland came into confederation under a clear set of principles approved and supported by the House. We are not talking about that; we are not talking here about amendments to the Yukon Act: we are talking about unilateral actions taken by the minister himself.
So far as this belief in a "deficit grant birthright" is concerned, Yukoners would have been most interested, as I was, to read some remarks which were supposed to have been given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) to the citizens of Whitehorse in a speech which was not circulated there or given out there, but which was circulated only here in

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. McLean
Ottawa. This is what the President of the Privy Council was supposed to have said in the speech in Whitehorse:
One of the hallmarks of responsible government is that the duly elected representatives of the people decide how the tax dollars they raise should be spent. In this regard, should Yukoners decide that it is desirable to proceed towards full status . .. then the revenues generated from taxation of the pipeline right-of-way will assume particular significance.
He went on to admit the following:
These revenues, which will accrue directly to the Yukon, rather than being funnelled through Ottawa, are expected to grow to $30 million annually and more, depending on the rate of inflation, and to amount to over $1 billion over the life of the project. It is interesting to note-
The speech continues:
-that were this $30 million applied to the present annual territorial budget, your government would almost be at a break-even level-
A Progressive Conservative government enjoys hearing that kind of equation.
There is much more I wanted to say on this topic, Mr. Speaker, but 1 will have to come back on another day, to another debate, to finish my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The only way the House can accept a question is by way of unanimous consent, because the time allowed the hon. member has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member to put his question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Dave Nickerson: I would like to ask the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner) why he thinks it is all right for him, as a southern Canadian, to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Canadian citizen, whereas I myself, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), or the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), cannot enjoy these privileges. Why does he still want to treat us in this colonial manner? Why will he not allow us to assume the responsibilities of responsible government eventually leading to provincial status?


B. Keith Penner: In my opinion, the new member has come to the House not having learned yet to listen to a speech before he rises to his feet to speak in debate. The point that was being made, in answer to his question, is that there is a proper way to proceed in this country and that is by way of an amending statute, by way of parliamentary action. What I have taken exception to, sir, is that constitutional steps have been taken without amendments to the Yukon Act and without any reference to Parliament. Nobody has spoken about the rights of citizens in the constitutional development of this country. The hon. member has completely missed the point, and I am sorry that after such a short period of time here his experience has helped him so little.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate and, along with other members, I wish to offer my best wishes and congratulations to Mr. Speaker on his re-election, and to you,

Mr. Deputy Speaker. Also, I wish to identify myself with words of appreciation for the mover (Mr. Fretz) and the seconder (Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan)) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the shape and focus of their remarks.
This is the first speech in the House by the first member for the new federal constituency of Waterloo. It is an honour for me to represent the 67,000 voters in that new riding created during the previous Parliament, along with 17 other ridings.
I should like to refer for a moment to the constituency of Waterloo, which includes a portion of the city of Kitchener, which was formerly a portion of the Kitchener riding. It includes the city of Waterloo, which was represented formerly in a different riding by Mr. Max Saltsman who for many years distinguished himself by his service to Parliament and the people of that area. Also, it includes Wilmot township, which was ably represented by the hon. Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis), as well as Wellesley and Woolwich townships, which were equally ably represented by the hon. Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Beatty).
The Kitchener-Waterloo area may be known to members of the House nationally through Oktoberfest and the televising of the national parade, if nothing else. But behind the televising of the parade and the stories of festival halls there lies a significant cultural community, a significant and vigorous economic and cultural area. In a sense, the new riding of Waterloo is a microcosm of Canada-building upon German roots and immigration. Today, it is a multicultural community. It takes pride in its Mennonite heritage and the characteristics of that way of life-marked by hard work, integrity, a deep sense of caring and compassion. This is reflected in the fact that the riding is amongst the prominent ones across Canada in the reception of Vietnamese refugees, the so-called boat people. The characteristics of work, trust and caring are inspired by the deep sense of faith which marks the people of my riding.
I want to say a word about the agricultural richness of the area. Dominant is Waterloo stockyard, one of the largest in southwestern Ontario. If one were to travel across the riding, one would enjoy Woolich township and the Elmira maple syrup festival. One would enjoy the hospitality of Wellesley and the apple butter festival. One would enjoy visiting Wilmot township and its areas of production in cheese and poultry. Also, one would enjoy very much the hospitality of small towns such as New Hamburg and Baden.
Within the urban area of Kitchener-Waterloo, one would see vigorous automotive, textile and electronics industries, as well as an industry related to space and the manufacturing of rubber products. The city of Waterloo has been called the Hartford of Canada, with more head offices of insurance companies than any other city in Canada. It is the home of two great Canadian universities. The University of Waterloo is world renowned for its co-operative engineering program. It has a fine applied mathematics program, a significant comput-
October 18, 1979

er science program around its large computer facilities, an optometry faculty, a program of integrated studies, and the recently established innovation centre which will seek to do research and development in relation to the needs of small business.
Also, there is the Waterloo Lutheran University, as it was known previously. Today, it is the Wilfrid Laurier University. Through its theology faculty it maintains its roots with its former church affiliation. It has a very significant and vigorous business school, a consulting service to small businesses, a very fine social work faculty, as well as a first-rate music faculty.
In drawing this brief description of the riding I am proud to represent, I do so with pride because in the Speech from the Throne there was the call to harness the resources of the nation to nation building. Also, it contained an invitation to all Canadians in all walks of life to participate. The riding of Waterloo, amongst the ridings of this nation, is rich with resources. It has natural resources. It has human resources of body, mind and spirit. Also, it is rich in cultural resources.
1 come proudly into this chamber, with all its history and with all of its importance for Canadian life, with a commitment to Canada and its future which I know is shared by my colleagues. I am grateful to God for this nation, its people and resources. Also, I am grateful that in my life I have had the opportunity to live on the west coast where I was raised, to live on the prairies, in central Canada and in the maritime community. For nearly five years I was associated on a daily basis with Canadian University Service Overseas-CUSO- as a co-founder and then the first director for West Africa, particularly Nigeria.
In my years of service abroad, I was able to see more clearly, than might have otherwise been my opportunity, Canada as seen from the world: Canada with its resources, its riches and its possibility to be a leader in the community of nations. Also, I was able to see something of the poverty and need of our world, to live through coups and counter-coups, and to realize how important this democratic Parliament is. I was able to see the importance of national, provincial and municipal institutions, ones which at times we take for granted.
Upon occasion, I was able to advise the Canadian International Development Agency in the direction of Canadian aid. I was able to see a number of the success stories of our effective participation with the so-called developing nations of the world-stories, which are so often not told because, unhappily, it is the bad news, which is often told and not things which are significant. Also, I had the opportunity of serving as a public servant. I recognize the importance of the contribution made by the public service in the nation's capital, as well as provincially within Manitoba. I was a consultant to the government of Prince Edward Island. I was able to see the importance at all levels of government of those who work behind the parliamentary process.
For the past 8.5 years I have been deeply involved in the life of the city of Waterloo as minister of Knox Presbyterian church and an alderman. There were influences and many
The Address-Mr. McLean
encouragements to my participation in the democratic process which formed my life. I am grateful for the mood and the focus of my constituents; for their pride in Canada, a pride we share together; for a world-view which has come out of immigration throughout the years; and for a sense that Canada shall play a responsible part in the community of nations. I am grateful to political leaders who have come from that area into the life of this nation, to those who teach and those who have taught me. I am grateful to my colleagues in the public service and the church. 1 am grateful to my family who permitted me to make this entry into elected public service.
In response to and support of the direction of the Speech from the Throne, I want to speak for a moment about my concern for national unity and for young people who are vital to national unity. I see across the nation tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young people who have completed higher education in order to be equipped and able to enter the life of our nation. I am anxious lest their enthusiasm, energy and commitment may not be channelled into our common life.
1 see high unemployment and among the unemployed far too many young people. I am encouraged at the direction and thought of the Youth Employment Secretariat, soon to be upgraded and instituted by the government. But I am concerned that in the days that lie ahead we may, as financial crises continue in our nation, not be able to utilize these young people and somehow their lives may become filled with bitterness and disaffection.
I would propose for the consideration of members of this House and the government the concept in Canada of a national youth service. This concept would encourage all young people who complete training in universities, community colleges or CEGEPs across the land to be required to invest two years of service to Canada. This service might be in the military, in CUSO, in voluntary agencies, in business or in industry. It might be in the civil service at the federal, provincial or municipal level; it might be in northern development or with community agencies within our inner city.
This would, obviously, require major consultation with all levels of government, industry and labour; but it would provide for every young Canadian two years during which they could serve the nation. They could, together-like those who served in war years-be under uniform terms of service and pay. In the process of national service they would learn about Canada; they would work in different areas; they would help build Canadian society-and they would begin to feel the sense of belonging, as many of us do in this nation. They would, as well, repay the investment made in their university and community college education. This would give these young people a working experience which would allow them to compete in the work force. Other nations have done this. It will be my hope to encourage consideration of this concept by the govern-

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. McLean
ment and others within the blouse who may find this a worth-while proposal.
I should like to make a second observation-this one about the single most important question facing Canada, the United States and a number of other western countries; namely, the whole issue of inflation and its effects on our society. The throne speech seeks to address this issue.
I am constantly struck by the way in which inflation is constantly perceived almost totally as an economic problem. This is perhaps understandable, because I am sure every member of this House is constantly reminded of the economic aspects of inflation every day of his or her life. I do not think, however, that we will fully understand inflation, nor will we be able to form a strategy to come to grips with this fundamental problem, until we possess a much broader understanding of what inflation really is.
Inflation is much more than an economic issue. Inflation is a sociological, psychological, political and, indeed, in very many ways a spiritual problem. It is straining the very essence of our society. It presents us with perhaps the fundamental challenge to our whole system of government and way of life as we move into the 1980s. Amongst its many insidious effects in our society, inflation tends to reinforce a protective, narrow selfinterest on the part of individuals and groups; and at the same time it tends to weaken the spirit of co-operation and collaboration among the many elements and interests across our society.
I think we are seriously deficient in our analysis of inflation if we do not understand this "cancerous disease" in all its dimensions. By regarding inflation solely as an economic issue, we are blinding ourselves to any real possibility of coming to grips with it.
I should like to propose, therefore, that either as part of some of the conferences on industrial development mentioned in the throne speech, or as a separate national conference in its own right, we should begin to develop a broader and better analysis of inflation and its consequences. We need to involve more than economists in these discussions. Social scientists, church leaders, leaders in the voluntary sector, labour leaders and many other groups should be invited to participate in a national conference on inflation. I hope the government will look seriously at this proposal.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, let me say I have the honour to represent a riding whose people are proud of Canada, and among those people there are those with dreams for this nation and who are not afraid to tackle difficult situations. Many of them have come from lands of oppression and appreciate the freedom that we enjoy in Canada. I am proud to represent this microcosm of Canadian society, and I am proud to offer my contribution in this House.
As I speak to Parliament on this day when we remember the decision to recognize persons-the human rights of women-I remember also the words of the first Canadian Governor General, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey. I wish during this,

my first speech in this significant chamber, to identify myself with the words of Governor General Massey, who said:
1 believe in Canada, with pride in her past, belief in her present, and faith in her future.
I believe in the quality of Canadian life, and in the character of Canadian institutions.
I believe in the Commonwealth of Nations, within whose bounds we have found freedom, and outside which our national life would lose its independent being.
I believe that Canada is one, and that if our minds dwell on those things which its parts have in common, we can find the unity of the whole.
I believe that with sound work, the spirit of a team, and an awareness of ourselves, we can look forward to achievements beyond our imagining.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, since it is very near the hour, I wonder if I might call it one o'clock and commence my remarks at two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, during the recent election campaign and during their recent years in opposition, the Conservative party gave the impression that they had the answer to all problems-for the handling of the economy, for the rate of inflation and unemployment, for the price of food and for the price and availability of housing, to mention a few. They also felt they could solve the problems of freedom of information and, indeed, almost every problem in this country. During the election campaign the Conservatives, with these promises and with slick, misleading and sometimes malicious advertising in the media, took in many Canadians.
But what do we have now? After approximately five months of power we have a government of charades, contradictions and flip-flops. We have a Speech from the Throne which suggests a lot of studies. The government wants to study this and study that, but there are few answers. Where are those brave statements that party made before the election, that they were going to act on the price of food, the Canadian dollar, interest rates, youth and unemployment and so on? Where are the answers now?
October 18, 1979

The previous government said that these were tough problems and that there were few absolute answers; that in a free society there are always trade-offs when the government intervenes. We said that the government can achieve its successes but there are few absolute victories. We pointed out that in a difficult world our record of success in solving problems was much better than that of other countries.
The Conservatives ridiculed that record. They said that they could do better, that they could lead Canadians to a new Shangri-La. Well, they have not. From what we can observe so far, it was all rhetoric, puffery and, indeed, baloney, and I could use a few stronger terms. They have no answers, no real solutions and no principles. Their only principle so far, from my observations, has been expediency and political gain. This was confirmed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) after the election who, when he was asked about his election promises, replied, "Well, those are only promises for the election campaign. We did not really mean them. Nobody was to take us seriously".
What about their brave words that they would give greater respect to Parliament and the elected representatives of the Canadian people? Let us look at the record so far. To begin with, they appointed a senator, Mr. de Cotret, a defeated candidate, to the major portfolio of industry, trade and commerce and to the inner cabinet which is that new power creature where many regions and interests are not represented, not to mention the fact that he is from the province of Ontario from which the Conservative party elected over 50 members. Presumably none of those members had the ability to be minister of industry, trade and commerce. How does this give credibility to the parliamentary system and the electoral process? Here is a senior minister appointed from the Senate who cannot be questioned in this place by the elected representatives of the people and who does not have to stand the heat of parliamentary democracy.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) said, "We would accept ministers being appointed from the Senate if they were from a province which had few representatives in the Conservative party, such as Quebec, but not from the province of Ontario with approximately 50 elected representatives in the party." A defeated candidate being appointed to a senior portfolio is unacceptable. Under our tradition a non-elected minister with a senior portfolio should seek a seat in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity. That is the tradition in the British parliamentary system in England, Canada and Australia.
Consequently, why is it that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret), the defeated candidate for Ottawa Centre, does not run in the by-elections to be held in Prince Albert or in Newfoundland? Why does the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) not insist that he get elected, or else resign from his portfolio? Where is that great respect for the parliamentary system that he spoke about?
The Address-Mr. Allmand
There are other examples of disrespect of Parliament. In setting up his new cabinet, the Prime Minister has given eight ministers two portfolios. How does this help members of parliament get information from the government when some carry such a heavy load? No minister with two portfolios, no matter how intelligent, can master his work and prepare properly to answer questions put to him in the House of Commons. Perhaps that is why the minister of consumer affairs is doing so badly in the House. The Prime Minister has saddled him with two of the most onerous portfolios in the government, that is to say, that of Solicitor General and Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I can speak with authority on those portfolios since I have held both of them. According to my experience there is no way an individual can be briefed each day to fully answer questions in the House of Commons for both of those portfolios.
The same can be said for the other double portfolios. I am speaking of the office of privy council and national revenue; defence and veterans affairs; post office and environment; secretary of state and communications; sports and multicultur-alism-


Mr. Paproski:: And what is wrong with that?


William Warren Allmand: -justice and leader of the Senate; industry, trade and commerce and board of economic development. Each of these portfolios is headed by one man. How does this indicate respect for the parliamentary system and the right of elected members to get answers in this House?


An hon. Member:: We give quality.


William Warren Allmand: We get no answers because there is too much for these ministers to handle.
The government has said that it believes in freedom of information and that it will bring in a freedom of information bill. When I wrote recently to the different ministers who are in portfolios for which I am a critic asking them to give me a copy of their daily clipping service, I was refused. I am referring to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Solicitor General's department and the Department of Justice. This is not a question of secret or confidential material but merely a collection of press clippings. They are helpful, however, because they bring together the clippings of all major media in Canada on a given subject. What kind of freedom of information is this? When I was a minister I would never refuse to provide these clippings to my critics. Each time they were asked for, I gave them. Often they were not asked for.
Recently I visited the offices of a prominent consumers' association in Montreal. This association was getting the daily clipping service of the minister of consumer affairs yet we, as critics in this House have not been able to get them. This is an example of more disrespect for Parliament.
What about the actions of the minister of Indian and northern affairs regarding the Yukon territorial government? The minister has said that he implemented these changes in

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Allmand
the Yukon first, because he believes in democracy; second, because the member for the Yukon was elected on such platform, a platform to bring provincial status to the Yukon; and third, because the majority in the Yukon council favour such a move. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
The Conservative party ran on many policy positions in the last election. Their platform brochures and election speeches were full of them. Because they were elected as the government, does this mean that they do not have to consult Parliament? Does the fact that they were elected and these items were in their platform mean that they can be implemented by administrative action rather than by consulting Parliament? Does it mean that all promises can be implemented by administrative action, like the new instructions to the Yukon Commissioner? I do not think so. That has not been our tradition.
The Minister's argument is weak on other grounds. Even if the federal election were to be considered a referendum on provincehood in the Yukon, then from my information the question did not carry. If 1 understand it correctly, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) won his election with approximately 45 per cent of the vote. It was enough to get him elected but not enough to interpret that the majority in the Yukon favoured provincial status. He had less than 50 per cent of the vote. 1 do not see how that can be considered a vote for provincehood in the Yukon.
Furthermore, while members of the Yukon council might have individually stated support for provincial status, they have not as a body, as the Yukon council, expressed themselves on this subject since the federal election. There has been no resolution, no debate and no vote in the council. In addition, the Conservative government in the Yukon received approximately 38 per cent of the vote in the last election. How is this an example of democratic action? Well, it is not.
The minister's action respecting the Yukon Territory was a unilateral administrative act without consulting this Parliament on the Yukon council. There was no debate and no vote. Neither the Commissioner of the Yukon nor the Yukon Indians was consulted. Neither their promise nor the Prime Minister's promise to hold a referendum on this subject in the Yukon was kept. The minister of Indian and northern affairs has said he will consult with the council of Yukon Indians later, but to do what? He has already implemented a policy which brings the Yukon down the road to provincial status. Does this mean that when he consults with the Yukon Indians next week and they tell him they are opposed to the instructions given the commissioner last week, he will then withdraw those instructions? 1 doubt it. The minister has already made up his mind. He has done this now, and he is going to consult later. The Minister has said he will hold a referendum later. If he is going to hold a referendum later respecting provincehood in the Yukon Territory, why did he take the action he took last week?


An hon. Member:: He has pre-judged the election.


William Warren Allmand: That is right. He said that the things he did last week are not a move to provincial status. That is not what the former commissioner thinks.
I might point out, because some people were casting doubts about her credibility this morning, that the Commissioner for the Yukon, Mrs. lone Christensen, was born in the Yukon and has lived her entire life there. Her father was a leading RCMP officer in the Yukon. Therefore, she has strong Yukon credentials. She resigned in protest over the instructions given to her last week because she felt the Conservative government was moving to provincial status too quickly and improperly. The key issue here is not, as the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) said this morning, whether or not one day the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should have provincial status; the issue is the complete disregard of Parliament in the implementation of major governmental change.
The minister's contention that his move was prompted by a respect for democracy is phony. With less than 50 per cent of the voters in the Yukon supporting a proposal, one cannot claim democratic support.
There are still more examples to illustrate how Parliament has been by-passed by this government which said it would give a higher priority to Parliament. Acting against public opinion and without consulting Parliament, the Tory government traded off Loto Canada to the provinces. As a member of Parliament who is a strong supporter of amateur sport, I considered this a most regretful move.
1 was present at many of the Olympics events held in Montreal in 1976 and at the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton in 1978. What pride there was for Canadian athletes and for the teams who showed so much improvement since the last Olympics and last Commonwealth Games. I believe Canada ranked in the top ten or eleven in the last Olympic Games and we walked away with the Commonwealth honours.
Under our Liberal government, the sports federations in our country had experienced increasing support over the last ten years and Loto Canada was a keystone of that support, it is from that source that a lot of money came for coaching, training and so on. Now the narrow, shortsighted Tory government has abolished all that and our amateur sporting groups are not sure where financial support will come from, despite the announcement yesterday by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism (Mr. Papros-ki). National sporting excellence in this country will not be maintained by provinces which approach all things from a regional, provincial perspective. The Tories treated a national dream for Canadian sport with short-term political expediency vis-a-vis the provinces.
There are more examples of ignoring Parliament. The Prime Minister signed agreements with Newfoundland and British Columbia to transfer offshore mineral rights to these provinces. Not only did he implement substantial constitutional change without consulting Parliament, but most informed
October 18, 1979

opinion considers that these agreements, especially that with British Columbia, are illegal and unconstitutional.
In 1967 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in interpreting the Canadian constitution that offshore mineral rights were a federal responsibility. They said that under the Canadian constitution offshore mineral rights off British Columbia were a Canadian federal responsibility. Consequently that court decision is part of Canadian constitutional law and cannot be changed by any federal-provincial agreement signed by the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of British Columbia. The only way the Prime Minister can transfer offshore mineral rights to British Columbia, and perhaps to any province, is by a constitutional amendment. You cannot change the constitution by administrative action.
So far I have spoken about the complete sham displayed by the Tory government which preaches one thing and does another when it comes to respecting Parliament. Now I would like to mention some of the government's contradictions.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) went to the United Nations preaching peace, virtue, aid and detente, but ended up causing the exact opposite. By her confused diplomacy she has hurt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and left the world with less safeguards. Before her ill-chosen remarks regarding Argentina, that country had expressed its intention to purchase the Canadian Candu reactor and to accept the stringent safeguards laid down by the previous government. Now she has prompted them by her remarks to purchase a more expensive German reactor with less stringent safeguards. What did she accomplish by her speech? The world is less secure and she has caused great harm to the Canadian economy.
It goes on, Mr. Speaker. During the election period the Tories campaigned "Vote Conservative and get the country working again". Then they left Parliament on the sidelines for five months, crippled the Canada Works program and so far have replaced it with nothing else; lost the Candu sale to Argentina and a lot of jobs; and lost the Foothills pipeline by their inaction and negligence, losing more jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: That is getting Canada working again.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order. The hon. member should be entitled to the courtesy of the House in order to complete his speech.


William Warren Allmand: The new Canada Works criteria are completely ridiculous because they do not account for very strong pockets of unemployment in ridings which are otherwise well off. I can give examples. The other day my colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount, who represents a portion of Saint-Henri and the Westmount part of Montreal, spoke. As everyone knows, the Westmount part is rather affluent, but Saint-Henri is not affluent at all. Because the level of unemployment in the total riding is not over 9 per cent, he gets no money at
The Address-Mr. Allmand
all from the Canada Works program to help the unemployed in his riding. The same is true in Notre-Dame-de-Grace. While some parts are fairly well off, there are pockets of real unemployment and poverty and we get no money. As a matter of fact, the whole west end of Montreal was cut off from Canada Works moneys because of the policies of the Tory government.
Under our policy we had a minimum amount for every constituency in this country to take care of those ridings where the total level of unemployment might be very low but with pockets of unemployment. They talk about democracy, but they abolished the constituency advisory group for Canada Works. In my riding on two occasions the president of my constituency advisory group for Canada Works was the Conservative candidate in the last election. That is the kind of group we had. I wanted a group under which the money would not be given out on a political basis. As I said, for two years the Conservative candidate was president of my committee, and another year it was the president of the NDP association as well as clergymen, principals of schools and so on. That has been abolished. Now Canada Works money where it applies will be given out on the advice of the Conservative member of Parliament or the defeated candidate.
The most startling omission in the Speech from the Throne is its silence respecting national unity. The Speech from the Throne mentions some activity in the area of federal-provincial relations, such as Loto Canada; but as I said before, I would argue that those things which are mentioned in the long run are initiatives that will lead to disunity.
One can judge the low priority this government gives to national unity by some of its actions or lack of actions. They abolished the national unity office. They postponed the constitutional conference that was to be held this fall. That was promised during the election campaign. They postponed it because they do not know what position they will take. They killed the referendum bill we had before Parliament to keep the separatist government in Quebec honest on their referendum bill. They decided not to proceed with that; they will trust the Quebec separatist government on that matter.
We have had no word on an entrenched bill of rights in the constitution. As a minority English-speaking Quebeckers, that is something that we, along with Francophones outside of Quebec, place high priority on. We want a bill of rights in our constitution to protect minorities in this country, not only linguistic minorities, but those of religion, race, sex and so on.
The other day the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) placed a motion before this House asking that this House support French speaking Canadians in the Penetang area of Ontario in their request for a minority language school. Some Conservatives said no to that request. We have not heard anything from this government with regard to federal assistance for minority language education and second language education. To my knowledge, they have done nothing to try and implement the bill passed in this House in the last session giving the right to French and English Canadians to have criminal trials in the language of their choice.

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Allmand
I have a strong feeling that this government has a tendency to ignore Francophones outside of Quebec and Anglophones in Quebec. One has the impression that this Tory government supports the view that Quebec should be solely French and the rest of the country solely Anglophone. In that sense they seem to approve of the bill 101 philosophy.
1 wish to remind them, because there are not too many opposite from Quebec, northern Ontario or northern New Brunswick, that Montreal is the third largest English speaking city in Canada and that Quebec is the fourth largest English speaking province in Canada. We have more Anglophones in Montreal and in Quebec than most of the provinces and we have been there longer. We are not a new phenomenon. There are more French Canadians in Ontario than there are in some of the maritime provinces.
These minority groups in provinces which have a linguistic majority in the other language are extremely important. Under our proposals, those language minorities would have been protected. I hope this government will do the same, but I have my doubts as a result of what they have done so far. I personally would like to warn the government that we will be here to ensure they do not forget us. Under no circumstances will we allow them to sell us out and to sell out other minorities in this country.
In my capacity as caucus chairman of Indian and northern affairs I have taken note of certain proposals in the Speech from the Throne, especially those which state it is the government's intention to propose amendments to the Indian Act. Or as the speech states "to correct inequities borne by some individuals". The intention is not too clear. I am not sure whether the Speech from the Throne is telling us they are going to make over-all amendments to the Indian Act, or whether they are talking about the problem of Indian women marrying non-Indian men and thereby losing their status.
In any case, as the critic for Indian affairs in this House on behalf of my party, I should like to know whether they intend to go forward with this amendment without the approval of the Indian people of the country. It has been our policy not to amend the Indian Act in the absence of the agreement of the Indian people with respect to the proposals. I intend to pursue this point. Are members opposite talking about specific amendments with respect to Indian women or the general emendation of the Indian Act? Do they intend to proceed without the approval of the Indian people?
I should also like to know whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp) agrees with the recent policy statement by the president of the National Indian Brotherhood that, if the Indian Act is amended with respect to Indian women so that they have the same status before the law as Indian men, that policy should be made retroactive and that the resources necessary to take care of all those new Indians should be provided. If we amend the act, as we should do to make sure that Indian women have the same rights as Indian men, there will be a lot more status Indians-double or triple

the population of status Indians. If we are sincere about what we are doing, it means doubling reserve land and increasing the resources available to the Indian people of this country to take care of all those new status Indians.
With respect to aboriginal claims, we do not know where the government stands at the present time. I do know the minister has greatly upset the committee for original peoples entitlement in the Mackenzie Delta, the COPE organization, by suggesting he intends to re-examine the agreement in principle which was signed by the former minister for Indian affairs and the COPE organization. They do not know, now, whether they have any agreement or not. The government cancelled the last two meetings which were set with the Council of Yukon Indians to discuss their land claims. They have received the Nunavut proposal from the Inuit in the eastern Arctic but they have not expressed any reaction. The other day the Montag-nais people of Quebec received a letter from the minister stating they had a prima facie case for their aboriginal claim but due to the fact that the government was reviewing its policy there was no money available to research their claim and it was not known what the outcome would be. I should like to know-and so would the Indian people-what policy the government intends to pursue with respect to aboriginal claims.
In conclusion, let me say that this Speech from the Throne is a complete disappointment. After waiting five months to call Parliament, the longest period in Canadian history in which Parliament has not met, we find only a commitment to more study and more confusion. Let me make this clear to the government: they did not have the support of the majority of Canadians voting in the last election; they do not hold a majority in this House. They should recognize those facts. This is a Parliament of minorities with respect to the parties. We in opposition intend to do everything possible to keep the government honest, to protect the national interest and, despite the administration's poor performance so far, to make sure we get good government in this country.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to take part in this throne speech debate. For me, it is a special honour to stand here today, for I came as an immigrant to this country. My parents came to Canada after experiencing the horrors of the last world war. They came in search of a peaceful place in which to raise their children and they found a home in Regina, Saskatchewan. It is therefore a special honour for me to stand here today as a representative of the community my parents chose as home and in which I was raised.
The community has all the rich social fabric which makes up our country today. Long before the Europeans came, Indians lived on the prairies hunting vast herds of buffalo. Then the explorers came, establishing missions and posts like Lebret and Fort Qu'Appelle. Later came the many waves of European settlers. They came from the Ukraine, the British Isles, Germany, Russia and many other lands. This heritage is all part of our community.
October 18, 1979

The area I represent has a very interesting history. It was not far from Fort Qu'Appelle that General Middleton set off northward to put down the rebellion of the northwest peoples led by Gabrielle Dumont and Louis Riel. It was in Regina that the Conservative government of the day hung Louis Riel in 1885.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Simon Leendert de Jong: May I digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the plight of the many people of Indian ancestry who live in my riding. The Indian and Metis people have some very legitimate grievances which should have been settled years ago. Too many of them live in economic and social squalor, substandard housing and conditions of ill health, unemployment, welfare dependency and cultural alienation. Indian and Metis people do not want to be dependent upon welfare and government hand-outs. For too many years their lives have been ruled by white bureaucrats. The Indian and Metis people want us to adhere to the commitments which were made when this land was developed. They want the tools and resources with which they can achieve their own economic and social self-sufficiency. For too long we have seen Liberal and Conservative government agents steal their land, evade responsibility and create bureaucratic straitjackets. We need clear, honest leadership if we are to avoid increased human tragedy in my community.
Mr. Speaker, the people I represent have a unique social history, for it was in Saskatchewan that farmers first stood up to the grain companies early in this century. Farmers were being robbed by grain buyers at the grain exchange so they organized wheat pools and, through co-operation, they began to take some control over their lives. It was in Regina in 1933 that the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation-the CCF- was formed, a new political party dedicated to the rights of all Canadians, not just those of the privileged few. It was in Saskatchewan, also, that the CCF first formed a government in 1944 when the people of that province embarked on a great social experiment. In the tradition in which they had fought the grain companies they began to tackle other common problems.
In a very short period of time, some 30 years, the people of Saskatchewan have changed the course of Canadian history. For example, when the banks wanted to take the farmers' land. Tommy Douglas passed laws to stop them. In 1948, a hospitalization scheme was introduced because the government believed that every human being should have access to hospital care regardless of how rich or poor they happened to be. Over the years the people have built up a family of Crown corporations, including everything from an energy company to a computer corporation. They are owned by the people and operated in the interests of the people. Medicare was introduced in Saskatchewan in 1962. Now, all Canadians have access to medical services. Unfortunately, the Liberals started to destroy the system and I am afraid the Conservatives will finish the job.
The Address-Mr. de Jong
I would like to point out that in every province except Saskatchewan citizens must pay hundreds of dollars annually for medicare premiums and deterrent fees. In Saskatchewan there is no extra charge for medicare. The people of Saskatchewan do not have to pay extra for health care. It is a right in Saskatchewan, as it should be all across Canada.
How do we do it? A good question. We co-operate. We do not approach problems in the way Liberals and Conservatives do, we co-operate. We have different ideas about organizing the economy. We have different priorities. We care about our fellow citizens. We are our brothers' keeper. In Saskatchewan we believe that the resources belong to the people. We do not let the multi-nationals carry them all away. It might interest people to know that in Saskatchewan there is a dental care program covering children between the ages of four and 12. Soon all young people in the province of Saskatchewan will be covered by a dental plan at no direct cost to the family. It will not cost the people of Saskatchewan thousands of dollars to take care of their children's teeth.
How can we do it? Well, we realize that properly managed Crown corporations serve the people well. We tax resources so that Saskatchewan people reap the benefits from those resources. We use this money to finance our social programs. Last year, for example, the Saskatchewan government got more than ten times the amount from its resources than did the Ontario government. That is how we do it. It is not so difficult. It is a matter of co-operation.
It is exactly the opposite of what this present government is doing. Instead of developing Petro-Canada in the public sector for the benefit of all Canadians, this government would sell off profitable and essential companies to their corporate friends. In Saskatchewan we know the importance of public enterprise. Saskatchewan people own and operate many companies: a transportation company, an oil company, the world's largest potash company, our own energy company and many others. We are not afraid of public ownership. We use it in Saskatchewan for the benefit of everyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Let us look at the benefits: dental care, a prescription drug plan which reduces costs for the sick, programs to help the handicapped, the least expensive car insurance in North America, and so on. The people of Saskatchewan believe in co-operation. We have co-operatives throughout the province; there is probably a co-op in every town or village. Over 60 per cent of all banking done in Saskatchewan is done through credit unions. However, this is the work of only one province, the home of less than a million souls. Much more can be done on a national scale, and that is why we are here.
This country needs economic planning. For too long decisions have been made in the corporate board rooms of other nations, and the results have been disastrous for us. We face many serious problems. We have double digit inflation, chron-

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. de Jong
ic unemployment and economic hard times for many Canadians.
Our older people are the ones who worked hard to build this country. Today they are expected to live on meagre incomes. 1 would like to quote from a piece distributed by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women which was just recently released.
Three out of four single, widowed or divorced women over 70 had an annual income of under $5,000 in 1977. Even with the government old age pension three out of five single, widowed or divorced women over 65 live in poverty. Company pensions do not help many women. Four out of five single, divorced or widowed women over 65 receive no income from private pension schemes. This is how we treat old people in Canada when we have all the resources we have! This country owes much to its old people. Many young people have little hope of permanent and meaningful employment.
There is talk of oil shortages. Interest rates are soaring. As a nation we face a mammoth debt load. What is wrong? Why should a country as rich as ours not be able to do better for its retired people, workers, farmers and the young? Why? Because successive Liberal and Conservative governments have followed policies which gave away our resources and our heritage. It just boggles my mind. Many of our resources are gone, our environment is polluted and all we have to show for this is a mammoth foreign debt. Foreign companies have taken our resources and left us with debt. Every month millions of dollars leave the country in the form of profits and dividends. This widens our balance of payments deficit and creates many of the financial problems we face.
In Saskatchewan the government went out and borrowed money and used it to acquire a majority interest in the potash industry. Now the profits from that resource will stay in the country and contribute to rather than drain our financial resources.
There is no doubt that many Canadians are going to face a tough winter. Higher interest rates and oil prices will increase the cost of food, clothing, housing and other necessities of life. They will slow down activities and create further unemployment. The only solution the previous Liberal government and now this government seem to have is to attack the victims of the economic system. Cutbacks in unemployment insurance, cutbacks in job creation and cutbacks in low-cost housing and other social programs are the only solutions Liberal and Conservative governments have been bringing before this House.
What is needed is economic planning. We need an economic blueprint. We have to get control over the economic forces so that they benefit Canadians rather than exploit them. We need an economic blueprint which will provide stable prices, full employment, affordable housing, medical care and other social programs. Instead, we have a government determined to recreate a myth, the myth of free enterprise. Imagine, in our day and age when prices are not set by a free, competitive market but by a few international monopolies, we have a government which does not believe government should actively participate

in the economic system on behalf of Canadians. This government is hell-bent on turning back the clock. It is destroying the few tools we have to protect ourselves from the manipulation and exploitation of multinationals.
When I read the task force report on Petro-Canada, I was amazed at the philosophy expressed. Somehow they seem to feel that we cannot run a successful public enterprise and still carry out social and national priorities. It is as though national and social priorities are incompatible with running a sound business. The people of Saskatchewan know that this is not so. They stand in total disbelief at the actions of this government.
In Saskatchewan we have a public transportation company. Our population is sparse and spread widely across the province. Many small towns and villages are served by this bus system. The profits from the main routes, those busy routes between cities, go to provide services to those routes which are not profitable. What this government is planning to do with Petro-Canada would be the same as if the Saskatchewan government gave the profitable parts of the bus company away and then began to pay for the unprofitable parts out of general revenue. No government in Saskatchewan would last five minutes if it tried something like that. It would be hooted and jeered out of office. Saskatchewan Conservative members of this House should know this. I am sure they do, and I am sure they know that their action will hurt them in the next election.
Saskatchewan people are quickly learning that this is not a progressive government. They realize that this government is controlled by the Bay Street boys.
What would happen if we sold off the profitable parts of our bus company? The unprofitable routes would have to be financed out of general revenue. There would be pressure to cut services, costs and taxes, and eventually the towns and villages would lose their bus service. That is the effect of this kind of thinking.
This government seems to have hang-ups about public enterprise; it does not think it can work. Well, if Petro-Canada must be taken out of government control, then I have a suggestion, a western suggestion. Make it a co-op, a national consumer-owned energy co-op. Give every Canadian a voting share. This would ensure that Petro-Canada would remain wholly Canadian-owned. It would also ensure that Petro-Canada would serve the interests of Canadians rather than exploiting them. It would ensure that Petro-Canada is democratically controlled.
If the recommendations of the task force on Petro-Canada are implemented, 100 people could end up owning and controlling Petro-Canada. It would eventually be taken over by oil companies and their corporate friends. Making Petro-Canada a consumer-owned co-op would guarantee that this could never happen. Who knows, five years down the road this co-op might operate a nationwide chain of service stations, explore and drill for oil and develop and market solar cells. Let the people make the decisions. Make Petro-Canada a co-op. I challenge the government to do some original thinking.
October 18, 1979

1 would now like to discuss briefly the Conservative mortgage interest tax credit proposal. As with the issue of Petro-Canada, this government seems determined to push ahead with something which just does not make sense to anybody. This year we will be asked to approve over half a billion dollars for a program which will eventually cost the treasury over $2 billion. Why? It will not make housing any more accessible. In fact, increases in interest rates have more than offset what little benefits home owners are going to get this year.
The American experience shows that eventually benefits get built into the cost of housing and that banks and development companies are the only ones who really benefit from the scheme. This new scheme will not stimulate construction. It does not benefit renters and those who have already paid off their mortgages. The mortgage interest scheme is just a political gimmick for which the Canadian taxpayers will end up paying. If the government is really serious about helping the average Canadian acquire decent, affordable housing, let it use CMHC. We have the instrument to stop land speculation, to initiate social and co-operative housing projects on a massive scale to bring down the cost of housing. Members of our party believe that mortgage interest rates should be reduced. They should be brought down to 8 per cent for families earning $25,000 or less per year. This approach would guarantee that banks and developers are not the people who eventually benefit from the public program and the public purse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: A political will is necessary. 1 am afraid the government lacks such will. It has embarked upon a program of dismantling CMHC. It is just like PetroCan; they are going to throw Canadian people to the wolves. Their policies will drive up the cost of housing at the same time as destroying CMHC, the only measure of support and protection average and lower income Canadians have to get into the housing market. It is both stupid and cruel.
In conclusion, Canada is facing a number of crises: world energy shortages affect our lifestyle, inflation and economic uncertainty undermine our labour, environmental pollution threatens our health. We have reached a point in human history where man has finally become capable of total selfdestruction. After millions of years of survival we stand on the brink of extinction. These are sobering thoughts, but if hon. members have been listening, they will know that 1 am not alone in this belief. Concerned thinkers and scientists throughout the world are raising their concerns. A new approach to development and economics is required. We cannot afford to continue with the outdated concepts of growth which we have been promoting for the past 200 years. We must have development which makes sense for people, not for profits! In some small way this was understood many years ago in Saskatchewan. The people realized that co-operation would make life better for everyone, so they co-operated. It is not perfect, but people understand that collective action can be taken to solve problems.
The Address-Mr. G. Richardson
The people of Saskatchewan woke up to the fact that the free market system was exploiting them, that the free market system was not so free, that the free market system works well for bosses and owners but does not do very much for the little guy, the average worker and farmer in the country. We in Saskatchewan fought back. We started to take control of our destiny. Saskatchewan Crown corporations are working in the interests of the province. Any profits that are produced are turned over to the provincial treasury to fund social programs and further economic development. Saskatchewan people own a large chunk of their province through Crown investments. Saskatchewan people own and operate these companies. Saskatchewan Government Insurance will never leave Saskatchewan as Sun Life left Quebec. The people of Saskatchewan own their own insurance company; they direct its activities.
Canadians can learn much from the Saskatchewan experience. They can learn to take control over their lives, to direct their own future and to co-operate. Also Canadians will learn that governments can plan ahead, that governments can make life easier and our rewards fuller. Today Canadians are seeking a greater voice in the development of this country. They have good reason to doubt the ability of the federal government to look after their best interests. While Liberals and Conservatives continue to promote their outdated economic theories, our party will demonstrate that we have alternatives, that we can plan an economy which will reduce unemployment, decrease inflation and provide proper health and social services for all Canadians. We will not allow industries to pollute our air, water or land. We will ensure that the environment is cleaned up and protected for future generations. We are not pessimists, we are optimists. It is not a dog-eat-dog world as far as we are concerned. We believe in co-operation and sharing. We are our brother's keeper. We have faith in the human race. We have faith in people's ability to work together to solve their common problems. We have faith in the future. We have faith in the vast human and social potential which can make this land and this planet a peaceful place in which to live, free from starvation and want, exploitation and greed.
Perhaps the best way to sum up would be to paraphrase the first leader of our movement, J. S. Woodsworth, who said, "What we desire for ourselves ... we demand for all".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. George Richardson (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to congratulate Your Honour on being elected as Speaker of the House. Also I should like to congratulate the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), for his excellent motion and the manner in which he presented it. Also I should like to congratulate the seconder, the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), on such an excellent presentation. 1 only hope that my maiden speech will be of the same calibre.
Also I congratulate our new Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) on forming one of the best governments Canada will ever have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
350

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. G. Richardson


George Clough Richardson: I thank the people of Humboldt-Lake Centre for electing me. I assure them I will do my best on their behalf. Indeed it is an honour to be the first representative from the new riding of Humboldt-Lake Centre, the heart of Saskatchewan. The riding contains over 12,000 square miles of inhabited farmland, four potash mines, seven Indian reservations and some of the finest people in Canada. It is situated mainly in the park belt area and contains some of the best farmland in Canada, particularly in the northeast corner. It is strictly a rural riding being made up of the rural areas of the former seats of Saskatoon-Humboldt, Regina-Lake Centre and Regina East. Part of it is the original Lake Centre seat in which Mr. Diefenbaker was first elected to Parliament in 1940.
Times change, populations decrease and Saskatchewan lost four seats in a redistribution. Lake Centre was put in with Moose Jaw and Mr. Diefenbaker had to move to Prince Albert, a seat which he held until his death in August. The title "Lake Centre" has been retained as part of the constituency name in honour of our former prime minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker.
At this time I should like to pay a brief tribute to Mr. Diefenbaker. He was never afraid of what men said. He always believed in what he did. One of his favourite quotes was that he was never always right and sometimes on the wrong side, but he was never on the side of wrong. He had the ability to bounce back, even when he lost the leadership at the 1967 convention. He went back to his hotel, shaved, put on a white shirt and said the equivalent of: let us go out and save Canada for Canadians. Mr. Diefenbaker made the Conservative party a progressive party. I believe it was his motion which added the description "Progressive" to the name Conservative. Whether this is true or not, it is a fact that he turned the party of the privileged into a party of the people, a party which believes in the worth of the individual and the values of private enterprise. He will be remembered as one of the greatest Canadians of all time.
This is a new government. We are facing the dawning of a new era. Unfortunately we are beginning in very difficult times. At the moment the annual budget deficit is approximately $11 billion. Our foreign exchange account is in a deficit position by several more billion. The United States appears to be going into recession, and the possibility exists of being dragged along with them. However, I firmly believe that if we fulfil our election promises, much can be done to alleviate the situation and put us on the right track to balance budgets and bring about a thriving economy.
Coming as I do from an agricultural riding, my first concerns naturally are for the welfare of agriculture and farmers. But let us face it, Mr. Speaker, when agriculture prospers, the rest of the nation does likewise. Even though Parliament was not in session, this government has been very active. One of our prime concerns, in the west at least, was to get grain moving and to put some cash in the farmers' pockets. We have

set ourselves the target of increasing our grain export capacity by 50 per cent by 1985 to meet the Canadian Wheat Board's projected increase in marketing possibilities by that time. When we became the government in May, we faced the fact that in the crop year just ending the railways had handled one million tonnes less grain than in the previous year. Because of the previous government's failure to move sufficient grain in the 1978-79 crop year, we are going to have to increase our handling by 20 per cent this year, and by 10 per cent each year thereafter until 1985, if we are to meet our target and commitment.
In this matter, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) stated this morning that we are ahead of last year. We are taking action, and the wheels are already in motion. Some 5,000 rehabilitated boxcars will be coming onstream this year. In addition to these, there will be 2,000 Canadian Wheat Board tankers coming into service. Thus the grain handling fleet will be increased by 7,000 cars in one year. The Murta commission, headed by the hon. member for Lisgar, has made many useful recommendations which will speed up the turnaround times of grain cars. The Minister of Transport appointed the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) to meet officials of the elevator companies, and the lines which will be kept and upgraded have probably been selected.
An agreement on the development of Prince Rupert has been signed. Improvements to the over-all system are being rapidly undertaken. The appointment of Dr. Hugh Horner as a grain controller will speed up matters. Because of possible bad weather, strikes and various disasters, such as the one that has just hit the CNR bridge in Vancouver, it is never safe to predict success. However, prospects are bright and we may well achieve our target of a 20 per cent increase in grain shipments this crop year.
A couple of days ago, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) told of the virtues and achievements of the previous government. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, in a democracy all governments have some virtues and achievements. However, I maintain that we as a government have achieved in five months as much as they did in five years. The hon. member for St. Boniface mentioned the revised quota system. It was a good quota system too because it brought millions of dollars to the pockets of farmers in western Canada.
The idea for that quota revision was mine. In 1969, at a meeting of Mr. Stanfield with grain producers in Regina, 1 broached the idea of a quota revision, but I was told by Mr. Hamilton that we were not in power at that time, which I accepted. We were not in power and we could not do anything about it. I passed that suggestion along through the Federation of Agriculture to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board at that time. He saw the value of the idea and immediately instituted a quota revision committee. The basis of that quota revision was a new quota system which resulted in millions of dollars ending up in the pockets of the farmers of western Canada over the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 18, 1979


George Clough Richardson: Although it was my idea, they took the credit, but that is fine because we all benefited. If you transferred that idea from here to there, Mr. Speaker, you would see that we have achieved more in five months than the previous government has in five years.
There are also other matters of deep concern to me. With regard to energy self-sufficiency, it is very important that we stop being dependent on foreign oil. The Speech from the Throne stressed this point.
We promised a once in a lifetime exemption from the capital gains tax on the sale of a farm. This is a measure that is very important so far as farmers are concerned. It is also a measure which should be extended to the sale of small businesses. We hope that in time this will be possible.
During the campaign we also promised to inject some common sense into the previous government's mad rush to convert to the metric system. The appointment of an overview committee to discover how far the change-over has gone and make sensible recommendations is a step in the right direction.
I hope to have time to return to this matter a little later.
The Speech from the Throne promised to implement our mortgage interest and tax deductibility scheme. Regardless of what the interest rates may be, those who are buying homes will still be helped by the scheme.
Last year, 20 per cent of the construction industry was unemployed and there were some 70 per cent unsold housing units in Canada. This scheme will help get those housing units off the market, will encourage new housing starts, will get construction workers back to work, and help an industry which is 100 per cent Canadian, using 95 per cent Canadian material in its work. What better way is there to help Canadians than by putting them to work building in Canada?
The matter of ever increasing interest rates is of deep concern to this government. The Progressive Conservative Party has always been considered the party of lower interest rates. The mandate given the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to look into all aspects of the situation and bring in recommendations should help toward finding a solution.
Small business is the backbone of this country. It is being badly hurt by ever increasing interest rates. It is the intention of this government to do something about rectifying this situation.
Returning to our promise of a once in a lifetime exemption from capital gains tax on the sale of a farm, I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) will be able to implement this measure in his first budget. It is very important that he do so. So far as the farmer is concerned, his property is his pension plan. Because of his ever increasing productivity, he is one of the greatest inflation fighters we have. Why should he be made to pay for inflation that he did not cause?
The present roll-over features in the tax laws are not satisfactory. Under these regulations, a farm can only be transferred to a son or a daughter. A farmer cannot transfer his farm to his sister free of capital gains tax, even though the
The Address-Mr. G. Richardson sister might have worked with him on that farm all her life. If he cash rents, he is no longer considered to be a farmer. He would have to sell his land to his son or daughter at the full market value as determined by the most recent sale of land in that vicinity. He would have to pay the full capital gains tax and his son or daughter would have to pay the full going price of land in that area.
It may be only a few years from now that a would-be farmer will not be able to afford to buy land from an heir who wishes to sell, because the heir will have to have so much money in order to pay his capital gains tax and have something left for himself that he would have to charge an outrageous price for the land. The only purchaser available then would be either a large corporation of government, for instance the Saskatchewan government land bank. In Saskatchewan now-I was given these figures the other day-there are some 914,000 acres of land already under the land bank and some 54,000 acres due to be purchased this year. We have to make it possible for the would-be farmers to buy land, and this once in a lifetime exemption from capital gains tax on the sale of a farm would seem to me to be the answer.
Land ownership by farmers on family farms has been the basis of progressive, productive agriculture throughout generations past. Continuation of our present course will result in takeovers by other than farmers-large corporations, governments and the like. Placing our farms under state ownership or corporation management lowers productivity and puts our future food supply in jeopardy.
Removal of this tax by allowing the farmer his once in a lifetime exemption on the sale of a farm would allow him to sell to anyone at a lower figure because there is no tax to pay. It would allow a family member to buy at a lower Figure and be able to pay for it. It would keep ownership in the hands of the farm operator. It would enable him to produce for less, and at the same time productivity of the farms would keep going up, with society as a whole being the beneficiary.
As I said before, I would like to see this regulation extended to small businesses. During the campaign we promised to eliminate the capital gains tax from the sale of public Canadian stocks and bonds. Some 70 per cent of the small businesses in Manitoba, for instance, including farms, are not listed on the stock exchange. The elimination of this tax for them would help equally as much as it would the farmer, and we hope this will take place in the future.
Personally I have always questioned the value of a capital gains tax in a country like Canada, a country that is perpetually short of development money. It does not make sense to me to transfer potential Canadian investment capital to the nonproductive sector by using a capital gains tax, then going abroad to borrow more capital at higher interest rates, further upsetting the foreign exchange and balance of payments accounts. I am told that less than 1 per cent of this tax goes into revenue, the rest of it being used up in administration. We are paying dearly for that 1 per cent in lost potential Canadian

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. G. Richardson
investment capital. Far too much potential Canadian investment capital has gone abroad because investors could get a better deal, a better tax break and a better margin of profit. It is the intention of this government to reverse this trend. It is the purpose of this government to encourage Canadians to invest at home.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this mad rush to metric that was instituted by the previous government-


An hon. Member:: Metric madness.


George Clough Richardson: It is metric madness, you are right. Seventy per cent of the people in my constituency would put a moratorium on this metric changeover right now.
Personally I am not against changing to something better. I am for those changes that will give us an advantage in the marketplace or make daily life easier and reduce the price of product to the consumer. I believe that the units of measure we use should be the most practical ones; the ones with which it is easier to operate, the ones that will cost the economy the least, the ones that it will be to our advantage to adopt, whether these units be imperial units, metric units or some of each. This mad, indiscriminate rush to metric change-over has achieved the opposite result.
Perhaps I should elaborate on some of the foolish changes in measurement the previous government forced us into. As a farmer I have had units of measurement forced on me that were not asked for, were not needed and are not practical. I refer specifically to the bushel and the tonne.
A few years ago our international grain trade was conducted in tonnes, the farmers were using bushels and everybody was happy, if not with the price at least with the unit of measurement. Today the average farmer does not know where he is at. He has been forced to deal in tonnes at the farm level and a tonne is just something that cannot be visualized. The bushel is a unit of volume as well as of weight. The tonne is a unit of weight but its volume cannot be estimated. A farmer can look at a field of grain and estimate the bushels on it within a very small margin of error. There is no way he can estimate tonnes or kilos. He can look at a bin and tell you immediately how many bushels he has in that bin; he can multiply the bushels by the price per bushel and give you his net worth just like that. He can go and talk to his banker and get his loan. He cannot do this in tonnes without carrying around a bunch of tables and a pocket calculator. When seeding in bushels we knew what we were sowing, and when harvesting we knew what we were reaping. Quotas in kilos or tonnes mean nothing to us whereas quotas in bushels do.
A few years ago, and even up to the present, it did not matter to the Russian or the Chinese buyer, whoever bought our grain, whether the farmer delivered the grain to the elevator in bushels or tonnes. That buyer was receiving the grain in tonnes in any event. Why was this impractical tonne measurement forced on us at the farm level? As it is now, the railways are still paid for hauling in hundredweights and car

capacities are listed in pounds. Where is progress made as a result of taking away our bushel and switching to metric?
I received a letter the other day from a small storekeeper in the village of Bruno, Saskatchewan. That storekeeper is being forced to buy metric scales at a cost of several thousand dollars with no trade-in value on his standard scales. These small merchants, the backbone of small communities, are finding it hard to make a go of it. In a small town of 400 or 500 people, and I come from one, how many thousands of dollars worth of groceries do these storekeepers have to sell just to pay for the scales? These small storekeepers cannot afford this kind of thing.
Referring now to lumber, if all our mills were switched to metric what would we use to repair all the standard size buildings in North America? A metric piece of plywood is three inches shorter and an inch and a half narrower. Sheer necessity would force us to produce in both standard and metric. The size of lumber yards would have to be increased to handle the different units. It would be necessary to have two production lines of equipment instead of one, and what that would do to the price of lumber I can guess. This would create problems and extra work for the mill men trying to fill orders for windows, doors, cabinets, lumber, etc. If followed, the actions of the previous government would force us to buy two sheets of metric plywood to repair that hole in our standard wall where the purchase of one standard size piece would have been sufficient. What a mess our livingrooms will be with cracks, joints, spaces and everything else all over the place! One standard size panel would have filled the need nicely.
To my way of thinking it would have been better to allow the person who wanted to use metric to buy a standard sheet and let him cut the three inches off the end and the inch and a half off the side. In this way we would only need one production line, not two, and in this way we would only create one set of problems, not two. The point I want to make is that to date common sense has not been used in this matter of metric change-over.
The manner in which metric change-over was handled by the previous government was an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people, and a costly insult at that. Industry knows when changeover will be beneficial to it. Farmers, storekeepers, consumers in general know what they want and what is good for them. When they want change they will ask for it, and the time for changing should be of their choosing. That is democracy, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, when 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States any process of changeover should be in tandem with them; that is, we should change as they do.
I should like to commend the Minister of State for Small Business and Industry (Mr. Huntington) for appointing an over-view committee to study the progress of metric conversion. I am sure this committee will bring in some common sense recommendations that will let us either retain or convert to the unit that best serves our purpose, be that an imperial unit, a metric unit, or some unit yet to be devised.
October 18, 1979

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure this Thirty-first Parliament will be one of the most productive, progressive and at the same time conservative Parliaments we have ever had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the throne speech debate. I extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on being re-elected as Speaker of this House. It is an historical event because I believe it is the first time a member of the opposition has been elected to serve as Speaker in this House. It reflects the confidence which both sides of this House have in your abilities, and I am sure that they will be challenged in this minority Parliament, making your duties that much more onerous. I hope that your ability to judge wisely and your fairness will continue. Those of us from northern Ontario feel it a great honour that one of our own should be elected Speaker of the House. I know that hon. members who served on the back bench on the government side in the last Parliament look forward with great anticipation to the much wider latitude you have always provided to members of the opposition, especially during the daily question period.
I would also like to extend congratulations to Senator Grosart on being elected as Speaker of the other place. He has been a member of long standing in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I sure that this will stand him in good stead in his new appointment. Of course, as Speaker in the Senate he will also be the honorary president of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I also want to extend congratulations to the former speaker, Senator Lapointe, on the character and the ability with which she served in this high office for several years. She did so with great style, grace and charm, and she has been an outstanding ambassador for Canada when she travelled abroad, whether replacing the Speaker of this House or acting in her own role as Speaker of the Senate.
I congratulate the hon. members for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) on their respective replies to the Speech from the Throne. I believe that they performed in the best traditions of this House, and hopefully have started what will be very good and worth-while parliamentary careers.
I extend my appreciation to the people of Algoma who last May 22 made what I believe was a very wise decision. I appreciated their support and encouragement on election day. Algoma riding takes in parts of Sudbury and Manitoulin districts as well as Algoma District on the north shore of Lake Huron, and it carries on up along the Lake Superior shore.
There were two significant changes which took place in the constituency this year. Some 15 per cent to 20 per cent of Sault Ste Marie, that area north of the second line and west of Allen's Side Road, was brought into the Algoma riding which resulted in some 11,000 electors being added to the constituency. I look forward to serving those constituents from that important city.
The Address-Mr. Foster
Likewise, since the last federal election the town of Elliot Lake has grown dramatically. It is one of the fastest growing towns in the country. In fact, if this Parliament should last as long as the Thirtieth Parliament, though I do not believe that it will, it will probably be a city by the time of dissolution.
With the last redistribution, there is almost a 50 per cent increase in the number of electors in my constituency, which spreads out along a rural area of some 400 miles from just south of Wawa in the northwest to Nairn Centre in the east, and includes Manitoulin Island, the largest island in fresh water in the world. I believe that it is one of the most challenging and interesting constituencies in the country and that it has the best electors. Of course, the challenge is the same to each and every member in this House, and that is to represent our electors in the House of Commons and to serve them in the constituency. That is what I plan to do as we begin this Thirty-first Parliament.
The election of 1979 is a long way behind us now. We have had the longest break between the election call and the opening of Parliament in the last 44 years. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicated that this time was necessary. It is worthwhile to look at some of the things which have happened during this period while the House was not sitting. Certainly there have been some very harmful and very negative occurrences in my constituency.
Specifically, I refer to the decision made in early July to locate the new uranium refinery for the province of Ontario in Port Hope, just on the doorstep of metropolitan Toronto. This was a terrible blow to the economy, planning and hopes of all the municipalities along the north shore of Lake Huron. We believed that this Crown corporation would be located at Blind River on the north shore of Lake Huron. This move represents the loss of some $100 million in capital investment and 235 new jobs in an area which has one of the highest employment rates of any area in the province.
I believe that it is the policy of this government to locate the refining of uranium and other mineral resources from northern Ontario on the doorstep of metropolitan Toronto. With such a policy it will be a long time before we in the north achieve those economic and social goals which we look for. As if to add insult to injury, we learned last week via the news media that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) and Eldorado Nuclear had announced that the nuclear waste of that refinery will be disposed of in Algoma.
It seems to me as though this government has no conscience, no heart and no soul. How could any reasonable person or government suggest that the resources will be mined and milled in the north, then refined in southern Ontario, which means that that area receives the benefit of the capital invested and the jobs available, and then after refining the uranium the nuclear waste will be sent back to the north? It is totally unacceptable. I hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will reverse this decision and locate the new uranium refinery in the north where it should have been in the first place.

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Foster
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) this summer decided to cancel the Canada Works program. This will have a disastrous effect on many of the communities in the Algoma-Manitoulin area which has depended on this program for some 400 to 500 seasonal jobs each year. This program has meant the spending of $1.5 million to $2 million on municipal and community projects, mainly through the municipal councils and Indian bands. There are approximately 4,000 to 5,000 status Indians living in the Algoma-Manitoulin area on 12 different Indian reserves. This program, which had created employment and benefited many of the communities, will now be replaced by unemployment insurance or welfare payments. Such a move was a cruel blow and most unfortunate for our community. A few weeks ago we had a seminar on employment programs for young people. We found that this Canada Works program, which we normally think of in terms of seasonal employment during the winter and spring months, was in fact utilized by young people to the extent of 45 per cent.
The new government came to power promising a great deal of economic activity and a chance for the private sector. On reading the Toronto Star yesterday, a headline suggested that the government was planning to impose a 23-cent excise tax on gasoline; this on top of a $4 increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil. If this report is accurate, then surely we are in for very, very hard economic times.
Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) told hon. members that he wanted to get that oil price increase behind him and get on with the building of the economy. I can see why he wants to get on with the building of the economy and get the oil price increase behind him, but if that oil price increase is to be 30 cents or 40 cents, as has been rumoured in press reports, we will not be getting on with the building of the economy very rapidly this year. It seems to me that if we are facing a 40-cent increase in gasoline prices, this will have a disastrous effect on the economy. An impact like that on the economy would be the equivalent of striking a weakened man with a baseball bat. As a result, the consumer price index will probably get pushed up 4 per cent to 5 per cent, giving us double digit inflation and a weakening economy.
The premier of Ontario has talked about the loss of 20,000 jobs in the province. His emissary, Mr. Miller, has come to Ottawa today to try to persuade the government not to move in such a drastic and harmful way. Mr. Blakeney, Premier of Saskatchewan, along with premiers from the Atlantic provinces, has expressed concern and denounced the move. All the sweetness and light of federal-provincial co-operation that we were told about during the election campaign seems to have gone down the drain over the last 24 hours.
I want to turn now to the report delivered by the task force on Monday. It seems to me that the proposals for the national petroleum corporation, Petro-Canada, require a review before being adopted by this government. In my opinion, the most

devastating effect would be that of the government having to pay off approximately $1.5 billion and then having to turn around and give the shares away. Surely if we are talking about cutting back government expenditures, putting an item of $1.5 billion in the supplementary estimates next spring will require a lot of fund raising from one source or the other. I do not know if this report that about 23 cents excise tax will be loaded on gasoline prices is true or not. Perhaps that is the way the Minister of Finance will raise the $1.5 billion that would have to be paid off if the task force report is implemented.
Instinctively I feel there will be harmful effects if the government pursue this action. If we are in a tight Financial situation, why deliberately assume an obligation of that size just to give something away? If we were to follow the procedure outlined by the task force report and at the same time the minister were to impose a 23-cent excise tax on each gallon of gasoline, we would have a situation whereby the Prime Minister by his own handiwork would be handing out a few shares of Petro-Canada worth maybe $100 and there would be an imposition of $150 in excise tax in order to get the money back. In a situation like that, no one gains. And, the real hooker is that we continue to pay the excise tax year after year, whereas the $100 worth of Petro-Canada shares, as proposed in the task force report, would be a one-time thing.
This report proposes an agency to take on all the risky ventures. All the things Petro-Canada is doing would be put into a company called Petro-Canada Exploration, which would be given away to the Canadian people. The risky things, such as the high Arctic exploration and the activities offshore on the east coast where this year the drilling of one well cost $25 million, would be assumed by this agency. Each year this agency would have to come back to Parliament to get approval for money required for exploration, for research into and development of tar sands technology, and so on.
At the present time Petro-Canada, because of its activities in the conventional western basin, is generating revenues in the order of $350 million in cash flow this year. That Figure is projected to be $550 million next year from its investments in Pacific Petroleums, Atlantic Richfield and others. I am told it is generating enough revenue that it will not be necessary to approach Parliament for two or three years for exploration funds. If we adopt that task force report, we have to pay off the $1.5 billion and then give it away. The agency taking the place of Petro-Canada would be coming to Parliament each year for funds for exploration and development.
There are other disadvantages as well. For example, there is a penalty involved. If the federal government were to pay off all the preferred shares owed to the banks in the Petro-Canada Corporation, a $20 million penalty is required to be paid by it. As one reads through the report, it will be seen they have tried deliberately to break up the activities of the national petroleum corporation-such as Panarctic, the Polar Gas project, and the Arctic pilot program-into projects that make money and ones that do not. We find that these shares are broken down. Obviously, it is a very difficult exercise, and I would hope that the government would not jump into that
October 18, 1979

proposal lightly. In my opinion, there are some natural disadvantages, the main ones being the financial cost to the government and the lack of direction which will result because it is paying most of its concern to generating profits and to paying a dividend to shareholders.
I think PetroCan has shown that it can give impetus and encouragement to the private sector and involve little investors and small exploration companies in its activities, but at the same time it is always working in co-operation with the private sector. It does no individual exploration. Those items should be carefully considered by the government before moving to implement the report. In my opinion it would be harmful and would not allow the national petroleum corporation to continue with what it is achieving now.
When members of this House went to work in 1975 to establish this corporation, I do not believe many of us thought that it would achieve as much as it has in the first three or four years it has been in place. I am surprised that the government is persisting with its plan to dismantle Petro-Canada.
A Gallup poll that was taken shows that 48 per cent of the people polled want Petro-Canada maintained, while 22 per cent said they did not. A more recent Gallup poll I believe has been more supportive than that. It is only three or four years since the bill establishing this corporation was passed, yet we have a major Canadian company owned by the Government of Canada and therefore by all Canadians. This company is big enough to stand up to the big foreign-owned multinational corporations that it deals with every day. It also has an influence on the whole industry. Petro-Canada is the sixth largest petroleum producer in Canada today. It is in the same league as the multinationals, and many of the other state owned oil companies which most countries have around the world.
Petro-Canada has taken an active role in exploration in the Arctic Islands. In 1978, 16 of the 26 wells drilled in the most remote frontier areas had PetroCan participation. PetroCan has the largest land possession in the eastcoast offshore, giving Canadians a real chance at the tremendous activity and development expected to take place there. In the Hybernia well, where there was an oil discovery this summer, the only Canadian player in the game was PetroCan. It has a 25 per cent involvement.
Let us look at state trading which was a role of PetroCan and is not in limbo. Before this government was elected, Canada was in a position through PetroCan to make a deal with Venezuela and Mexico for some 100,000 barrels a day so that we would not be dependent on the multinationals such as Imperial which last year proposed to cut back some 25,000 barrels a day of oil. That was during the Iranian revolution.
In the negotiations signed by the former minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Gillespie, we had a $5 billion agreement whereby we would be buying their non-renewable resources and they would be buying our manufactured goods, items of high technology like the Candu reactor. That agree-
The Address-Mr. Foster
ment has been in limbo since the election. I understand the French have moved in and have taken the position for 100,000 barrels which would have been ours, and prospects of deliveries by Pemex, the Mexican national petroleum corporation, have been sharply reduced.
These negotiations with Venezuela and Mexico are now in limbo. No activity is taking place. In a recent delegation that went to Mexico, there was only one PetroCan official as an observer. We see as well that the Japanese have taken our place in line. They are not negotiating for 100,000 barrels a day but for 200,000 to 300,000 barrels a day. They are talking about a pipeline across Mexico and a port on the west coast.
Countries like Mexico and Venezuela have indicated they want to trade on a state basis in the future. They find it incomprehensible that this government is considering dismantling our national petroleum corporation. When the Prime Minister was in Japan in June, he indicated that our net petroleum requirements of offshore crude oil by 1985 would go from 200,000 today to 600,000 barrels a day. He promised to cut it from 660,000 to 600,000 barrels a day. It has more recently been suggested that by 1990 it might be 800,000 barrels a day.
When Sheik Yamani, the minister of energy for Saudi Arabia, was here, he suggested the real crunch would take place by 1985. At this time a year ago, there was some surplus in crude oil supplies in the world, but by 1985 the demand will far exceed the supplies. Of course, the real crunch will come then.
State to state negotiations will become more and more important in the future. The government has indicated it will leave state to state trading with the proposed agency or Crown corporation, but they have left it in limbo. Instead of hiking their way down to Mexico or Venezuela to complete negotiations, they have been in limbo since then.
PetroCan has taken an active role in the Syncrude project and other projects in the west such as the tar sands, the Lloydminster heavy oils project and the Cold Lake project of Esso Resources. This is fitting. It is certainly our most important ace in the hole. There is no certainty that future oil supplies will be discovered in the western basin, the east coast offshore or in the high Arctic. We know the tar sands are there. It is a case of finding capital investment and of overcoming environmental concerns to bring it onstream. PetroCan has been and should continue to be active in that.
Negotiations with Lloydminster and Esso Resources have been in limbo for the past six months. In the last three or four years of its existence, PetroCan has been a real catapult in exploration in the Arctic. If we look at the Whitefish discovery in the Arctic Islands last spring where three trillion feet of gas was discovered, we see that the initiative for that Arctic Island exploration group came from PetroCan. However, it did not invest all the money; there was something like an 18 per cent investment. Much of the rest came from multinational corporations which launched on a five-year program that will cost $80 million. It has already discovered significant reserves of natural gas.

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Foster
In my opinion, we will not get that kind of initiative with the type of company proposed in the task force report on Petro-Canada. We will lose that. It will be a self-perpetuating management more concerned about paying dividends to its shareholders, which it should be, than taking risks and bringing onstream four or five years earlier the oil and natural gas resources that we need.
The same is true of the Sable Island discovery last summer. When PetroCan first went in there all other exploration had ceased in that area. They spent between $40 million and $50 million on exploration and made a really important discovery there. Although they had been ridiculed by the industry, the industry followed along and went in and now they are only a minority shareholder. If that well of last summer is proven, there will be adequate gas for almost three times the needs of the maritime provinces. It will change the whole energy pattern in those provinces.
In the Newfoundland-Labrador shelf, nine of the 11 wells drilled off Newfoundland this summer have had PetroCan investment, including the Hybernia well where oil was discovered. PetroCan was the only Canadian participant in that project. PetroCan s initiative on the east coast has stimulated a great deal of exploration and development there.
It is interesting to note that the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Peckford, is one of the most lively and enthusiastic of PetroCan's supporters. It is a pity the Prime Minister does not listen to his counterpart in Newfoundland.
To put that kind of activity that is taking place on the east coast offshore into perspective, some $600 million has been spent during the last 12 years on exploration and development there. This year it will be $300 million. That shows the kind of enthusiastic activity that is taking place this year while a few years ago activity was very low. If oil is discovered there in quantities large enough to be produced, it will be in the right place because it is on the east coast that we import most of our oil.
PetroCan has been intimately involved in the Arctic pilot project, which is a liquefied natural gas proposal. It is designed to use tankers and a gasification scow to liquefy natural gas in the Arctic Islands and ship it by tanker to east coast ports. The capital investment involved is much smaller than would be required for a pipeline. It gives us flexibility in the movement of natural gas in liquefied form to all the east coast ports.
Even more important is the ship technology which would be involved. There would be important spin-offs for delivering minerals and ores from the Arctic Islands. We are building up significant gas reserves in the Arctic Islands and this is the most favourable project at this stage, certainly from a financial point of view, because, as I say, not so much capital is needed as would be needed for the building of a pipeline. Using two ice-breaker tankers under that scheme we could process some 250 million cubic feet of gas per day, the equivalent of 40,000 barrels of oil a day, for the east coast. With the acquisition of Pacific Petroleums, PetroCan was

placed in a much more favourable revenue position and I hope that before the government destroys or dismantles the national petroleum company it will listen to members of Parliament on this side, to members on its own back benches, to the provincial premiers and, most of all, to the wishes of the Canadian people. They want the corporation to remain in force to ensure our supplies of petroleum in the future.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As usual at the beginning of a new Parliament, I would like to extend customary congratulations first to the Governor General who admirably discharges his duties and shows a thorough knowledge of Canada. I am also pleased to see you back in the chair, Mr. Speaker, because you have discharged your duties with much dignity and fairness during the last Parliament. I would also like to congratulate sincerely the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. There is no doubt that they are destined to a fine career and I heartily wish them the best.
I cannot refrain from mentioning the changes which have occurred in the House; thus, the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark) has become Prime Minister. We wish him the best of luck in carrying out that difficult task given to him by the electors. I am convinced that the former prime minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is now Leader of the Official Opposition will lead his troops with as much ability as in the past.
I also extend my good wishes to the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) for his skill in speaking French. I should not forget either the leader of my party, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) who brings on the federal scene his invaluable experience.
My best wishes are directed to all new hon. members who make their debut; I wish them as much success as possible. The hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) stated yesterday that he had been welcomed by all hon. members, except those of the Social Credit Party. I dare hope that he did not mean what he said; so, my best wishes to him, and 1 wanted to say "Tungasugit" to him, which means "welcome" in his language.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see my colleagues and I are getting closer to power, but what I fear most on this side of the House is to be asked questions by my Liberal colleagues. I hope they will recognize that we share the floor of the House with the Progressive Conservatives, but we do not necessarily share their policies.
It is customary at the beginning of the first speech to praise the beauties of one's constituency, which I hasten to do. I have had the honour of representing the constituency of Rimouski for seven years. This year, the area of Temiscouata was added to the area of Rimouski to form the new constituency of Rimouski, which will be called Rimouski-Temiscouata eventually, as I put forward a bill to that effect. I should like to thank
October 18, 1979

all my electors who enabled me to sail across the "Red Sea", and I repeat what 1 have always said: Once elected an hon. member is at the service of the population. Whatever the political barriers may be, above all else human beings must be taken care of. I can assure my fellow citizens of the riding of Rimouski that 1 shall be available and devoted to them.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is the first opportunity the government has given us of evaluating the situation in our country and the solutions it intends to bring as the elected government. The government party made many promises during the last election campaign. To what extent it will live up to those promises remains a mystery. But one thing is sure, and that is that Canadians want a drastic change in the direction given the management of our country. They want a sound and stable economy, favourable to the young. I rejoice when I hear the government state that it will stress co-operation with the provinces. I was one of those who, in the past, opposed systematically the prevailing atmosphere of confrontation. And so, we were offered a plateful of good intentions that had been so reduced that the hungriest could not eat their fill. Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. We have never really had a truly economic policy. Preceding governments merely implemented measures without too much concern about their repercussions, going ahead somewhat blindly.
When we draw a picture of the future, we cannot help doing it in the darkest colours. Our young people are not sure that jobs will be available for them when they leave school. The rate of unemployment remains at a level which is unacceptable to a society worthy of the name. The rate of unemployment in Quebec is 9 per cent. In my region of eastern Quebec, the level is intolerable. Early last summer, it reached 22 per cent. It is a fact that this level was reduced somewhat during the summer months, but because of seasonal factors only. Faced with such a situation, talents are wasted, lives are jeopardized, and our young people are powerless to deal with an uncertain future.
While on this subject, I should like to remind the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) that a new policy affecting the distribution of control regions for the computation of unemployment insurance entitlement came into force in November, 1978. It was claimed that this policy would take the economic realities of the various regions into account. This is certainly not the case in my own riding. It is made up of two separate areas, one which is attached to the Lower St. Lawrence-Gaspe region, and the other to the Quebec City region where the criteria are clearly less advantageous, while the rate of unemployment is about the same in both areas of my riding. The rate of unemployment in the Lower St. Lawrence-Gaspe region is about the same as in the Quebec City region.
Mr. Speaker, unemployment is a real problem, we must not hide the truth and be afraid to say so, especially when it is as high as it is today. Not only does unemployment completely upset the economy by generating a slow paralysis of all
The Address-Mr. Allard
activities, but it jeopardizes the capitalist system itself. Either the system will find a way to make it disappear or unemployment will some day make what is left of the system disappear.
The real solution to unemployment and inflation is not to create jobs at all cost but to change our present social system and allow all citizens, no matter what their status, to enjoy our country's wealth, even if they have no job, since as consumers they are integral parts of our Canadian economy. The solution we have been advocating for many years is to bring the retirement age from 65 down to 60 or less, according to the rising rate of unemployment. Then we would strike the necessary balance in the equation between industrialization and consumption. During the first six months of this year, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in the Lower St. Lawrence area has shown such variations as 17.9, 22.8, 23.7, 19.8 and 17.9 per cent.
In the Quebec City area, it reached 9.4 per cent, 10.7 per cent, 11 per cent, 9.1 per cent and 7.3 per cent. It is therefore obvious that these rates have nothing in common. This is why I ask the minister to review the boundaries of this area so that the region of Grand Portage may be included in the Lower St. Lawrence-Gaspe area to determine benefit entitlements. [English]
Mr. Speaker, may I also take this opportunity to review quickly the state of our economy. Unemployment is a great concern, but the unemployed are not the only ones left out by our economic system. Farmers are not particularly privileged in our system. They are faced with much red tape and many regulations. Quota allocations are constantly reviewed, so that farmers cannot plan on a long-term basis.
People 65 and over also have to fight to obtain minimum living support. My friends in the government used to listen when I debated this question during the last Parliament, but now that they are on this side of the House I wonder if they will be receptive.
[ Translation]
In the last few years, I have suggested an optional retirement pension plan at 60 which could be established progressively. It would ensure better distribution of government funds. In this way, the jobs liberated by these people would go to the unemployed and we could save considerable amounts in unemployment insurance and reduce the financial burden of the old age security system. As I was saying, my colleagues in the government were very receptive to this idea. Will they still be as receptive now that they are on the other side of the House?
What about the poverty which still exists in spite of all the social legislation passed by Parliament? Last year, the Senate estimated that 43 per cent of the people living on their own were below the poverty level. These are mostly older people, which supports the suggestion that I made earlier. There are also 22 per cent of Canadian families in this situation. Poverty,
358

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Allard
inflation, unemployment, those are all important challenges which threaten all Canadians. In view of all this, the Speech from the Throne does not contain much hope. It refers to a few isolated measures, but does not mention any real medium or long-term economic policy. The government has adopted an attitude of laissez-faire in the hope that the situation will improve by itself. The previous administrations gave the impression that they left everything to luck. When Canadians protested against incredible inflation rates, a commission was created. Five were established during the last few Parliaments to study, control or review prices and especially wages, and they were then abolished. I was quite happy when the present government abolished the latest of these Liberal inventions.
Concrete problems require concrete solutions. Since 1971, the cost of living has increased by 90 per cent. The dollar has gone down 20 per cent compared with the American dollar. And since we are talking about statistics, I shall give a few more. In 1978, the government had a deficit of $12 billion, or 20 times more than in 1974. The deficit will be even higher this year. My colleague from St. John's West, who is now Minister of Finance, was the first to be shocked by this situation in past years. If he wants to take strict action, now is the time to do it. Our debt continues to increase at an alarming rate.
Last year, we had accumulated a $40.5 billion debt and we paid over $5 billion in interest, $240 per capita. Over the last five years, bankruptcies more than doubled in Canada, and rising interest rates are pushing credit out of reach, which implies that investments will slow down and people intending to buy a home will prefer to wait until conditions get better, rather than paying rates of up to 1414 per cent.
Such is the situation confronting members elected to this new Parliament. We should concentrate on this and see to it that this government discharges its duties as soon as possible. The people today expect and are entitled to a minimum of sincerity and honesty from politicians. Last year, while corporations increased their profits by 25 per cent, our unemployed, our farmers, our old aged pensioners and all those asking for a fairer share of this country's riches felt no improvement.
I have given many statistics, enough maybe to make us forget the human consequences of our economic difficulties. Our party always favoured throughout its history a human approach to our society's various problems. We believe in giving first place to the human being. We have consistently proposed reforms to that end. We believe among other things that each citizen must enjoy a minimum of physical and social security. We therefore propose a system of guaranteed annual income. The first duty of any government is to guarantee that every individual and family has sufficient income to be reasonably well off.
Mr. Speaker, economical justice also means fairer distribution of development across the nation. If certain economic areas continue to be favoured at the expense of others, national

unity will be left without much support. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the government consider an economic recovery plan for remote regions, for example by implementing a transport policy beneficial to these regions so that they can also have their rightful place under the sun.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) no doubt remembers when it was announced that allowable cod catches in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would be increased. In this regard, also, the people of the Gaspe peninsula are at a loss since 10 per cent of these additional quotas will be for vessels of 100 feet or more which are harboured in the gulf or elsewhere. The problem lies in the fact that fishermen from the Gaspe peninsula do not have large vessels and those vessels of 100 feet or more will come mostly from other areas. I would therefore ask the minister to reconsider his decision which discriminates against the Gaspe peninsula fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, as a duly elected political group in this House, we could, according to the rules of procedures, introduce a motion condemning the government, but since the government must have the opportunity to prove its good will, we will allow it to do so. That is why we voted the way we did last Monday on the motion put by the Leader of the Opposition, but we can always change our mind.

I sincerely hope that this session will be the occasion to draw all the dynamic forces of this country together. Canada is at the crossroads of her history. Many decisions are facing us, and they will not always be easy to take. Quebeckers are about to make a decision which will affect all of us, whatever the result. I hope that the government will show an attitude of change and co-operation with all provinces so that Canada may be a better land for our children.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to wish you well in the fulfilment of your responsibilities. Also, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). I hope that in the next few years my French will be as good as his English was this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Thomson: First I would like to assure hon. members that as I make my remarks this afternoon I am completely free of conflict of interest. I say that because I was involved in the oil industry for 20 years. However, prior to my nomination as Conservative candidate for Calgary South, I divested myself completely of any interests in the oil industry. I hold no management position nor do I serve on any board of directors or any committee.
The subject which I wish to address to the House this afternoon is on the issue of Petro-Canada. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the issue of Petro-Canada has been blown so much out of proportion by the media and by the opposition parties in this House, particularly in relation to future energy supplies for Canada. It seems to me that this controversy is
October 18, 1979

relatively unimportant compared to the more serious problems facing Canada today.
Just to put the issue of Petro-Canada in some perspective, let me say that the company had total assets of $3.3 billion as of December 31, 1978. At the rate at which we are importing crude oil into Canada, this amount is equal to the cost of six months' crude oil imports. In other words, in the short period of six months, Canadians have consumed crude oil equal to the assets of Petro-Canada. It is in light of this that I believe the matter of Petro-Canada has assumed far greater proportions than is warranted.
At the same time, it is important for Canadians to understand what Petro-Canada is as it stands today and what can be achieved by individual Canadians owning shares of that company. The opposition would have Canadians believe that the solution to the energy crisis lies in the choice between Exxon and Petro-Canada; that is, multinational ownership or state ownership.
In the last five years, a revolution has been going on in western Canada and in the oil industry generally. The number of companies owned by Canadians has been increasing at a significant rate. Today, there are over 700 companies finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. Most of these companies are Canadian owned. They are responsible for 75 per cent of the wells drilled in western Canada, and there are numerous stories involving Canadians who have become important factors in the oil and gas picture.
I am absolutely confident that the oil industry will find the oil and gas reserves we need for self-sufficiency, given the economic opportunity to do so.
There is no question that the people of Canada distrust the giant oil companies. I think this distrust is largely unfounded. Consumers, not only in Canada but in all industrial nations, have been the great beneficiaries of cheap oil supplies for many years. Surely it would be foolish to cast aside the benefits that Canada receives from the large multinational oil companies simply on the basis that they are very large, with huge budgets, and that they are the object of the popular suspicion that bigness brings. The multinational oil companies have had great success in finding oil, some of it in hostile environments. They have enormous reservoirs of extra expertise. It would be irresponsible to do anything but encourage them to search as aggressively as they possibly can in Canada.
I simply cannot understand how economic nationalists can say that the repatriation of the Canadian oil industry from the United States investor is in the best interests of Canadians. In the next ten years, Canada will need about $200 billion just to develop our energy resources. Canada cannot provide this money by itself; it needs foreign investment. But how can we possibly encourage foreign investors when they do not know if their investment is going to be nationalized? Certainly much of the oil is foreign controlled. Why is that? It is because the former Liberal government would not offer Canadians the incentive to invest in their own country.


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


John William Thomson: I can speak from personal experience. I have spent many years trying to raise money in Canada for oil exploration, with little success.
Our government favours a strong private sector energy industry, managed by Canadians and owned by Canadians. We believe in Canadian citizenship ownership rather than Canadian state ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Thomson: Our government believes that a Petro-Canada owned directly by Canadian citizens will be more effective and efficient, and will contribute more to Canada's objective of energy self-sufficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Thomson: The private sector, the Government of Canada, and the provincial governments must all be deeply committed to the performance of their roles which are, respectively, petroleum operations and the design of a public policy framework. Both public and private participants must contribute to the accomplishment of clearly desirable national objectives.
Let me return for a moment to the fall of 1973 and 1974. Because of the Middle East war there were fears of shortages of oil in Canada. It was largely on the strength of the realization that Canada could not rely on cheap foreign oil to supply our needs that the former Liberal government came to the conclusion that one of the vehicles to be used to improve Canada's security of supply would be a national oil comany. Ostensibly this was the main reason for the establishment of Petro-Canada. But the Liberal government was so concerned about extending government control to the private sector that it lost sight of the basic energy needs of the Canadian people. Since that time, Petro-Canada has been put forward not only as a national saviour in terms of security of supply but also as a "window on the industry" and as a necessity for state to state oil trading.
The original mandate of Petro-Canada was to explore for and develop new sources of oil and gas supply for the country in areas where the conventional producers were not prepared to gamble. But what did Petro-Canada do? It purchased Atlantic Richfield and Pacific Petroleums. Did these acquisitions add any new reserves of oil and gas to our Canadian inventory? No, not a drop. Virtually all these reserves were acquired by the purchase of Atlantic Richfield and Pacific Petroleums. These reserves were in the ground in Canada and were completely secure for the people of Canada. Atlantic Richfield and Pacific Petroleums could not export any reserves without federal government approval.
It is interesting to note also that in 1977 Petro-Canada had 151 million barrels of oil reserves. At the end of 1978, these reserves had declined to 143 million barrels, a net loss of 8 million barrels for the year.
Security of supply is achieved when new oil reserves are found or new technology is developed to enhance production

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Thomson
from existing reserves. New oil is found by long and diligent work and expertise. It is not found by acquisitions, by buying companies that already have it. In fact, much of the expertise acquired through the acquisition of Atlantic Richfield and Pacific Petroleums has since left Petro-Canada.
Pacific Petroleums was a well-managed, successful and aggressive company. It was doing all the things any oil company could be expected to do and it was not costing Canadians one cent. It was finding new reserves; it was helping to create security of supply. Let us also remember that the purchase of the various assets Petro-Canada now owns did not contribute to the creation of any new jobs which otherwise would not have been created by the acquired companies if they had been left on their own.
It is simply untrue that the acquisition of Pacific Petroleums will provide Petro-Canada with a cash flow from existing oil and gas production to help finance the search for new oil and gas supplies in the development of heavy oil fields. The cash flow from Pacific Petroleums will not even service the interest on the debt incurred to purchase the company.
Also I should like to point out that it is not true there is any need for a government-owned oil company to make investments which otherwise would not be made. The recent example of exploration success in the Beaufort Sea demonstrates that if the ground rules with respect to taxes and pricing are satisfactory, shareholder owned companies will become involved of their own accord in all the risk taking which Canada needs in this or any other industry.
In his motion of non-confidence, the leader of the New Democratic Party sought to secure for Petro-Canada a monopoly on all imports of oil into Canada at a time when our supply is uncertain and insecure and when the international oil companies still have much of the foreign oil under their control through contracts. Surely common sense would suggest that a course opposite to that of the New Democrats should be undertaken. We should seek as many channels through which essential oil can flow as possible, not restrict the means to import oil. We should take full advantage of the worldwide oil network provided by the big companies, the so-called Seven Sisters, and if there are any useful ways of adding to this, we should do that as well.
One of the criticisms over the proposed sale of Petro-Canada to Canadians is that it is necessary for the federal government to keep a window on the industry through ownership of a large oil company. This is sheer nonsense. I should like to point out that in the blue book of estimates for 1979-1980 the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is staffed with no less than 12,180 man-years of bureaucracy to keep a window on the industry at a cost of $200 million. In addition, the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act provides volumes of information to the government. The oil industry is monitored from every standpoint and is likely the most highly regulated industry in our country. The necessity of having a window on the industry is nonsense.

There has been much discussion about the advisability of having a Crown owned corporation to effect purchases of foreign oil from foreign government-owned companies, and if necessary Petro-Canada should be utilized for this purpose. A better method would be to negotiate an international trade agreement with the particular country which is to supply oil, and then have commercial agreements negotiated within the terms of that treaty by private companies in Canada that would use the oil. This would serve the dual purpose of giving the Canadian government better control over the acquisition of foreign oil, while leaving commercial terms to private industry. Our government recognizes that it has a responsibility to fulfil with respect to state to state oil supplies. However, it is not necessary for Petro-Canada to carry out this function. Our government intends to do everything possible to ensure adequate supplies of a vital commodity which we will have to import in increasing volumes during the 1980s.
Where does Petro-Canada stand today? Let us remember that the original purchase of Petro-Canada was made by placing an additional tax burden on Canadians. The taxpayers of this country put up $800 million in equity to fund Petro-Canada, which is the equivalent of over $300 for every man, woman and child in Canada. This money came out of the pockets of Canadians in taxes which they otherwise would not have had to pay. The taxpayer also has ultimate liability for $2.5 billion worth of debt Petro-Canada has incurred. The financial structure of Petro-Canada as it now exists is overburdened with debt in relation to equity. Its debt is three times its equity, compared to a ratio in the private sector of the oil industry of about one-third debt to equity. In other words, Petro-Canada has nine times the amount of debt in relation to the equity of the private sector.
In 1978 it earned $13.3 million on an investment of $3.3 billion. This rate of return is less than half of 1 per cent and is an appalling mismanagement of taxpayers' money. We must remember that the government is borrowing money at the rate of 10 per cent, while PetroCan makes less than one half of 1 per cent. Shareholders of any public company would not tolerate such a disgraceful profit performance from its board of directors and its management. In the first six months of 1979 Petro-Canada lost $7.6 million. The reason for this loss is that the company cannot generate sufficient income to pay for the interest costs on the debt incurred to purchase Pacific Petroleums.
Petro-Canada is attempting to carry out the impossible, the dual roles of a commercial company and an agent of federal government policy. It is an impossible position of conflicting interest. The conflict between political goals of a government and the goals of a commercial corporation is at the root of what is wrong with Petro-Canada. When a Crown corporation such as Petro-Canada is charged with the frequently conflicting responsibility of serving broad national objectives and showing an appropriate profit from the use of resources under its control, such conflicts place the senior technical personnel and officers in an inherent state of uncertainty. They must make difficult decisions as to which objectives should take
October 18, 1979

precedence, frequently with incomplete knowledge of the urgency of national priorities. I say that without intending to malign the management of Petro-Canada.
Resources are not efficiently used when the objectives of a company are not clearly stated. There is an old saying in business: "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there". Those who control the company have an uncertain accountability. Profits may be attributed to good business judgment, while losses may be attributed to the fulfilling of national objectives. Who is to know? Certainly not the Canadian public with the set-up we have at the moment. Crown corporations are never free from political interference. It has been amply demonstrated by numerous Crown corporations that in every instance of direct government involvement in business they have problems running commercial operations without special breaks and subsidies. What our government is seeking to do is to maximize the benefit from the use of taxpayers' dollars. Maximum benefit results when government limits its role to public interest activities which are not commercial.
It is imperative that individual Canadians understand our serious oil deficiency. If the individual Canadian is directly involved in Canada's energy future, he will have a better opportunity to understand the energy problem. Certainly government must be responsible for public interest activities designed to assure secure supplies of energy for all Canadians. However, government need not engage in activities which are more effectively and efficiently served directly by its citizens, whether citizens invest as individuals or are organized in business.
I support the recommendation by the task force that Petro-Canada, as it presently exists, be divided into two parts, one which will be a private sector company and one which will continue to be an agent of the government and have direct responsibilities for activities which appropriately lie with the government.
The task force has recommended, and 1 agree, that the public sector responsibility would be transferred to a new government agency with the following functions: the negotiation of any necessary state to state oil supply contracts; the promotion of increased frontier exploration; and the promotion of oil sands and heavy oil research and development.
The private sector company, a new Petro-Canada, must be given a firm mandate to conduct its affairs on the basis of commercial viability. It must be absolutely clear that Petro-Canada will not be an instrument for the achievement of the government's public policy objectives.
I support the concept that individual citizens will be better served by having their energy investment reside directly with the private sector company. In this way shareholders will have the democratic right to influence policy through the decisions of the annual meeting or through the board of directors.
The new Petro-Canada as described by the task force can be the largest Canadian-owned petroleum company and its board
The Address-Mr. Thomson
of directors must be free to develop corporate policies which will permit the achievement of commercial objectives in a responsible way. Because Petro-Canada will have to compete, it will constantly be accountable to its shareholders, the citizens of Canada, for the efficient use of its resources and the resulting profits. Mismanagement will quickly become evident.
Canadian citizens, through their direct participation in Canada's new petroleum company, will be involved in the rewards and the responsibilities of ownership, and at the same time the new company will have the responsibility of encouraging citizen involvement and will recognize its direct accountability to its citizen shareholders.
The task force has again recommended that only eligible Canadian individuals should be entitled to receive shares in Petro-Canada, and only eligible Canadians should be permitted to acquire shares in the after market. I completely agree with this. A new Petro-Canada is assured of being a wholly Canadian-owned company. Individual investors should be limited to 1 per cent of the common shares outstanding. Every citizen in this country would be eligible to receive shares.
Under the proposed reorganization Petro-Canada would have the potential of becoming not just the largest Canadian controlled company but perhaps the largest company in the energy field in this country. The performance of management and the board of directors will be measured by the profitability of the resources it has under its control. Direct ownership by Canadians is preferable to assigning responsibility to government officials, with only the electoral process as a periodic control mechanism.
There is no issue that I feel more strongly about than our freedom which exists under the free enterprise system. Our liberty is directly linked to free enterprise. If free enterprise is destroyed we lose our political freedom. If we believe in the freedom of the individual from state domination, we must not allow any government to dominate our economy through government ownership.
Our government intends to give individual initiative the opportunity to flourish once again, and to stimulate the enthusiasm of all Canadians to take a stake and to share in the risks of building a better Canada. It is the creative drive in people, the energy of individual Canadians operating in a free economy where there are opportunities and where government is an assistance, not a hindrance, it is individuals, not bureaucracy, not government, that make a nation great.
I for one will be delighted to own the shares of the new Petro-Canada. If run properly as a commercial operation it will be one of the best investments any Canadian could hold. This is an opportunity for our children and for their children to participate in the immense economic wealth of their country.
In closing, I put the following question to this House. Do you prefer that Canadians own Petro-Canada through their federal government, as they own Air Canada and the post office, or do you prefer that Canadians pay lower taxes and have the opportunity to make their own choice of investment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Marceau



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Jonquiere (Mr. Marceau), I would like, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson): Northern Affairs-Provincial status for the Yukon; the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae): Energy-Purchase of oil from Mexico; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes): Energy-Supply of gasoline and heating oil this winter.
The hon. member for Jonquiere has the floor.

[ Translation]


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to his Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, as I take the floor to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, I recall an extremely pleasant moment I experienced in 1969 when at the request of the then prime minister I had the privilege of seconding a motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Being aware of the importance of the role we have to assume I take great pleasure in congratulating the movers of the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Also I would like to extend my congratulations to the Speaker for his re-election, to assure him of my collaboration and to remind him that probably all members appreciate his competence and his devotion.
First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Speech from the Throne must not necessarily contain the detailed list of what the government proposes to do during the session. What is generally expected is a general statement on the direction the government intends to take for a given period, bearing in mind the problems that confront the country. We know that, in this day and age, Speeches from the Throne are often long, that they are made up of general considerations on the state of the nation, the problems it faces and an enumeration of the bills to be submitted to the legislators. In that regard, the Speech from the Throne of October 9 by the new Governor General is more in the old tradition than in the new. It is rather short, possibly even laconic, compared with some speeches of the preceding government.

A Speech from the Throne, whether long or short, specific or vague, always says something by which one can judge to some extent whether the government has the upper hand or not, whether it knows where the country is going, whether it has policies and ideas to offer as solutions to current problems. Now, what is one to think of the first Speech from the Throne of the new government? Its concision betrays at once great wariness and a lack of confidence in itself on the part of this party that accedes to power for the first time in 16 years. This speech confirms what was suspected from the start, that this inexperienced team is still somewhat haunted by the scope of the difficult problems Canada faces at the present time. But, from a government that spent the last few years criticizing the former government mainly for its economic, energy and constitutional policies, the Speech from the Throne clearly indicates that it has yet to make its bed, that it did not make it in those three fields of endeavour.
In the economic sector it announced a series of measures which are certainly warranted to a certain extent, if not entirely original. But we do not have the feeling that the government has an exact idea of the remedy which our condition requires. I see a clear indication of this in the fact that it is counting a lot on the upcoming federal-provincial conference which is to set the economic targets of Canada for the next decade and determine together with the provinces the best means to achieve them.
We should certainly not look down on this concern which proceeds from the best federalist spirit, to involve the provinces in the planning of long-term economic policies. But a government bent on demonstrating leadership must have its own outlook on matters and express it. In any event, it must act and indicate how it intends to act if it wants to inspire the trust which is so necessary for the expected recovery.
Yet, it is in the economic sector that the new government apparently wanted to impress the public most by announcing rather pompously a five-phase strategy. One is undeniable and it concerns once again the control of government activities: expense cutback procedures already announced in Jasper at the end of the summer, staff cuts in the public services, sunset legislation allowing for the termination of government activities which are no longer justified.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw particular attention to a project which means a great deal to the Lac Saint-Jean region and for which its representatives have fought for over three years. When the government speaks of budget cuts, it creates confusion, in my view, maybe not willfully so, but it does create confusion in the minds of the people. For three years, Mr. Speaker, and after heated debate, we have been authorized to build a taxation data center in Jonquiere, and this project might create, in the short or longer term, 1,000 temporary or permanent jobs. In an area where the unemployment
October 18, 1979

rate ranks among the highest in Canada, this project is of crucial and vital importance. 1 urge the government not to take action to stop this project, however short the deadline may be.
The federal government has already directly invested $2 million in this project. The foundations of the building are already built. A contract for construction of the structure has been awarded to the lowest bidder; moreover, and it is important that this be recalled, the city of Jonquiere, at the request of the federal government, has modified its plans for future development in order that the site be rearranged according to the requirements of the federal government and located in the middle of the three former communities of Jonquiere, Kenoga-mi and Arvida, which are now amalgamated under the name of Jonquiere, a building symbolizing the federalism we are advocating on all sides of the House. I must commend most particularly my colleague who is here in the House right now. He was the minister for our area, the minister of regional economic expansion, and he worked hard both within cabinet and in other places so we would have in our region that building which is the most concrete proof to separatists that federalism is not only discussion and dialogue but really jobs we need in an area highly troubled by unemployment reaching alarming proportions which are close to the highest in Canada.
So I would like to say beyond any political partisanship that it is not Gilles Marceau, federal member of Parliament, who is speaking, but the spokesman for a remote area of this great country of ours who is imploring this government-and they will get the credit for continuing that building; I will make sure of it-but I ask them, I beg them nearly on my knees not to delay that construction because there are thousands of people waiting for jobs, trying honourably to earn a living, who are often blamed for being unemployed although it is not always their fault. 1 recall that this government has received a petition from ladies in my riding containing 22,000 signatures. Only women can do interesting and persuading things like that. They went around homes, gathered 22,000 signatures and sent them here to Ottawa. The Jonquiere city council prepared a long brief indicating the investments of over $5 million which have now been made by the city of Jonquiere and the provincial government for the road network, and the federal government has committed $2 million.
The estimates of the Department of Public Works included an amount of $3,500,000 earmarked for the continuation of the work because, as I said, the foundations are there, the plans are practically completed, only the structure is needed and the lowest bidder submitted his price and was accepted. I am not suggesting the government did not have the right to stop that project. I think it is normal for a government to examine each and every project before investing. 1 admit it is their responsibility to see whether the project really meets a need.
I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) during the question period when he said, "we are going to examine which
The Address-Mr. Marceau
projects create jobs, which projects are the most effective". Well, I want to urge him, and I know that he can accept our representations, I urge him and I urge the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) to carry on that project. It is not a party which will benefit from that project, it is the people in that area who want it, who require it, and I believe that it is one of their fundamental rights to ask that federalism be advantageous not only for big cities, big centres, but that it be good as well for people who live in remote areas and who are also going to vote in the Quebec referendum. Until the government takes a decision on that matter, 1 think that we are in no position to convince people that federalism is good for them; the project is temporarily stopped and people are beginning to wonder. Still I would not want to voice a definite opinion about this.
I know the government will take into consideration that request 1 make on behalf of the population, on behalf of the 22,000 people who signed the petition, on behalf of the city of Jonquiere which has presented the petition, as well as on my behalf since I presented a memorandum and on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board who has met with those people to discuss this with them.
In addition to those few general remarks on the budget, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that major problems like energy, inflation and unemployment are mostly dealt with in a futile phraseology. The Progressive Conservatives are in turn experiencing the advantages and disadvantages of our status as a U.S. subsidiary, forced to counter the blows as well as we can. The increase in the bank interest rate just struck a hard blow on our economy and thus cancelled the benefits which were to be derived from the mortgage interest deduction program the government should eventually introduce. On constitutional matters, nothing in the throne speech shows a vision of Canada in the future, of the role the federal government should be playing in a country threatened by centrifugal forces. It is noteworthy that it says a lot about diversity in Canada but nothing about the unity to be preserved or restored.
The same thing is true of the energy problem, which is very serious in itself and which moreover threatens to accelerate the political disintegration of our country. Since major Canadian problems have a more or less direct relationship with the main problem of our unity crisis, the government will be unable to implement a coherent and credible energy policy if it does not first define its purpose in constitutional matters. The jewel of the Speech from the Throne should have been the energy policy at which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has worked all summer long and about which he had given us a lot of hope, but there is now a deadlock between Ontario and Alberta concerning the pricing of Canadian oil, and the evasiveness of the Governor General

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Marceau
shows the reluctance of the government to use its arbitration powers since this could damage its general purpose theory of non-confrontation federalism.
Since the price of gas may go up in the near future to $1.30 a gallon and in view of the tragic effects of this increase on those who not only drive their cars but must also heat their homes with oil, since major increases of this importance are foreseen, both sides of the House must concentrate their efforts to try to make a decision at the federal level which will be equitable for everyone and go beyond the individual or collective interests of the provincial governments.
The term "non-confrontation federalism" is an electoral cliche which seems increasingly on the way to becoming a constitutional principle even though it does not exist in practical government. It is useful when provincial interests coincide, for instance in the case of lotteries and provincial offshore resource rights, but it is not sufficient in a case of a conflict of interest. We have only to think about the conference of communications ministers, where the premiers requested yesterday jurisdiction over cable distribution, to which the federal government rightly objected. The provinces have already started to show some impatience and dissatisfaction and they will continue to ask for more as long as the government gives them everything they want. However, I believe they can be responsible enough to realize, when the government refuses their requests, that this disintegration of the central power must come to an end since it has already gone too far in one direction, which does not mean that we should go in the other direction.
The speech outlines a number of legislative measures that appear to be so much less objectionable that their brevity leaves no room for criticism. But one thing above all is lacking in that document-a thrust, a vision, a certain image of tomorrow s Canada that would instil courage and call to action.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to say a few words on the dismantling of Petro-Canada. I know that members opposite have different views from ours. But as far as I am concerned, the point can be made that the hydrocarbons market, especially the oil market is controlled by foreign multinational corporations, and those corporations in the conduct of their business do not give due priority to Canada's national interests. In a period of 40 years, no private Canadian corporation succeeded in achieving a major role in the oil industry. Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation owned by all Canadians, has become in a matter of years Canada's biggest oil company. As I see it, Petro-Canada gave the Canadian government for the first time the expertise vitally needed to really know what is happening in that sector. Like a number of other nations, Canada now has in Petro-Canada an important instrument to better protect our national interests in that industry. I therefore urge the government to consider the situation in depth, to look at the survey showing that 75 per cent of Canadians generally

approve of Petro-Canada. It seems to me that we should keep Petro-Canada as the property of all Canadians and a major instrument of Canadian policy in energy matters.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would once more ask the government, outside of any partisan politics, to decide on a work re-start on the fiscal data centre in Jonquiere. In so doing they will prove to the people in my area that they are a sensible government, and the thousand jobs they will be creating will deserve them praise as they will the previous government who started the project. And for once a genuine link will have been provided between past and present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There was an indication earlier that the House would be seeking consent at this time to revert to routine proceedings, particularly to statements by ministers, to permit the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to make a statement and for others to respond to that statement.
I see the Prime Minister is in the House now. Is it agreed that the House revert to statements by ministers at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF &quot;PERSONS CASE&quot;-PROPOSED MEASURES TO IMPROVE STATUS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the "Persons case", that historic decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain which declared that women were in fact "persons" and were thus eligible under the British North America Act to "be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada". This decision was the result of the tireless efforts of five Alberta women: Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, and Irene Parlby. It is fitting that the House pay tribute today to the efforts of those five Alberta women, and to the efforts of countless others in the 50 years since the Persons case who have worked to reduce the obstacles to equality for women in Canada.
Seven such women were honoured last evening by His Excellency the Governor General, and the House would want to join in recognition of the rank of Dr. Elizabeth Bagshaw of Hamilton, Ontario; the honourable Therese Casgrain of Montreal; Marion Royce of Toronto, Dr. Grace Maclnnis of Vancouver, Eileen Tallman-Sufrin of White Rock, British
October 18, 1979

Columbia; Mary Two Axe Early of Caughnawaga, Quebec; and Sophia Dixon of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The stark fact, on this fiftieth anniversary of a landmark decision, is that women have not achieved equality-economically, politically, socially.
[ Translation]
Economically speaking, women are second class citizens. Despite a sharp increase in the number of women in the labour force, and considering that it continues to grow, there is always a marked gap between their conditions of employment and those of men, particularly as regards the number of jobs available, the nature of work, the salary, working hours and opportunities for promotion. In the area of employment, women are pushed back in ghettos or in positions characterized by low pay and limited mobility. The gap between the income of men and women is enormous and it widens continually. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the average income of women represents only 53 per cent of the average income of men. And women are most affected by unemployment-9.1 per cent compared to 6.9 per cent for men.
Among senior citizens, women are often alone with a small pension or often with no pension at all. Even with the old age security pension, among single women, widows, divorced women or women over 65, three out of five live under the poverty line.

Politically, women have not achieved equality. One look around this chamber is enough to show that. Socially, a second class status persists, reinforced by the fact that many women-because of their economic dependence-are often powerless to change their situation. Clearly, the situation of women in this country 50 years after the Persons case is not one of which we can be proud. It is a priority of my government that this situation must change. I have spoken many times in the House as leader of the opposition on the failures of government policy in relation to women. Now, as head of a new government, I intend to try to rectify some of those failures and to develop policies that are sensitive to the needs and aspirations of Canadian women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have to remedy the economic situation which follows from the second class status we reserve for women. One of the most important findings of the latest report on women and poverty prepared by the National Welfare Council is the one which says that in most cases women are poor because poverty is the natural consequence of the role society gives them.
Our economic structures leave no room for equal status. To remedy this situation, an important step would be to recognize the influence of the jobs traditionally reserved for women which leads them to poverty and to find solutions to the
Persons Case
problem. We are currently preparing an employment strategy which will deal precisely with this problem.
False solutions intended to bring down the unemployment rate among women by creating short-term jobs will not really improve the employment situation for women. We have to recognize that segregation in employment, lower salaries, limitation of promotion opportunities and care of children are all realities and that we, in the House, have a duty to find solutions to these problems because, in the final analysis, not only women will benefit from them, but the whole society. [English]
An employment strategy for women must be based on two fundamental premises; first, women are in the labour force to stay; second, women have the right to participate in economic activity on the same terms and conditions as men.
The objectives of that employment strategy will include lowering the female unemployment rate through permanent full and part-time jobs, reducing job segregation and developing measures to work toward its eventual elimination, and lowering the wage gap between men and women.
The employment strategy that is presently being drawn up by Status of Women Canada, in conjunction with other departments, will contain measures dealing with women in the public service as well. We will be developing an enhanced equal opportunity policy to advance women in the public service, and developing measures to ensure that the proportion of women in the public service is maintained, and even improved, during the period of attrition.
Once women achieve equality in the work force, they will be able to achieve equality in retirement. But until that goal is reached we must do something to alleviate the extreme poverty among elderly women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have announced a committee inquiry into pension and retirement questions. That committee will consider the pension situation for women. I hope it will make recommendations to the government upon which we can act with some speed.
In the meantime, one of my government's commitments is to cease the practice of cutting off the spouse's allowance upon the death of the pensioner spouse. This is only a first step, but a necessary one, and it is the bill with which we will begin this new Parliament of Canada on Monday next.
In the social realm, the abuse of women both inside and outside the family is something that must be rectified. In this regard we intend to do our part by rationalizing the sexual assault offences and by calling on the provinces to do their part in relation to the administration of justice in the matter of violence against women. In addition, the interdepartmental committee on family violence is working towards a national consultation to find solutions to the problem of family violence, of whom the chief victims are women. This committee was begun under the former government, and I consider its work to be a priority in coming to grips with the problem of violence against women.

October 18, 1979
Persons Case
Finally, in order to end the discrimination in the Indian Act against women who marry non-Indians, we will be bringing in an amendment to amend the discriminatory sections of that act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is my earnest hope that the women of Canada do not have to wait another 50 years to achieve equality of status with men and to be true persons in our society. We should not have needed the courts to declare in 1929 that women were persons. Nor should we need to be reminded of the fact in 1979.
The hard truth, however, is that women are still not considered full and equal persons, that every inch towards equality has been won only by a hard fight against public opinion, and that a lot of attitudes must change before the goal of true equality is reached.
I hope that the commemoration of Persons Day throughout the country today will mark a beginning in a drastically needed change of attitude, and that in the future such commemorations will be reminders of injustices of the past-and not of the present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we on this side welcome many of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Clark) statements today. I join with him in paying tribute to the distinguished women he mentioned at the beginning of his remarks. I noted that he talked about Alberta women, and women from across Canada. I am happy in terms of my parochial interest to thank him for recognizing Dr. Elizabeth Bagshaw. I might say that I too should like to pay tribute to an Alberta woman, a woman I met about 20 minutes ago, a totally charming and disarming woman, and a very friendly one indeed. She happens to be the Prime Minister's mother.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I must say that having met her I feel totally unable to make any unkind remarks, which pretty well necessitates obliterating about three quarters of my speech.
I do wish to pay tribute to the women of Canada on this the fiftieth anniversary of the Persons case. I pay special tribute to those brave Alberta women who led the battle some 50 years ago, but I honour as well all those women who followed them in their determination to create a society where women have an equal place. Since that momentous decision in 1929, which in very narrow terms allowed women to be appointed to the Senate, many changes have taken place in the lives of Canadian women. Many doors have opened, but there is still a long way to go. There are still people in our society who do not enjoy all the benefits of full citizenship, and a great many of them are women.
The problems of our country-inflation, a faltering economy, a high rate of unemployment, and reduced social services-all rest heavily on the shoulders of women. Despite the increasing awareness and more general recognition of women's rights, there are still areas of discrimination and, as society becomes ever more complex, new issues concerning women arise. We must continue as elected representatives to be responsive to the needs of women so ably expressed by women.
The Prime Minister referred to the government's employment strategy. Many of his comments with respect to that were most welcome, but might I point out two principal concerns if any employment strategy is to have a real chance of implementation. One is the key area of day care centres across Canada. Recent statistics indicate that day care centres are on the decrease. Success cannot be attained in terms of equal opportunity for women in the work place if day care centres are inadequate. Lacking such centres, many women cannot take advantage of the opportunities for employment so many of them wish to obtain in order to alleviate the very poverty of which the Prime Minister spoke. I think this is an area in which the Prime Minister would have particular influence with his colleagues in the provinces, many of whom are premiers, and I would hope he would undertake to place that subject on his agenda at the earliest possible opportunity.
The other key to considerably alleviating inequality with respect to women lies in the area of private pensions. A lot could be done there in terms of survivors benefits, early vesting, and indexing. Again in terms of the realization of the objectives the Prime Minister so eloquently spoke of, this topic should be placed high on his priority list for discussion with the provinces as so much of this area falls within provincial jurisdiction. Certainly under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government can, in co-operation with the provinces, attain a great deal.
The celebrations around the country today reflect the joy and pride we feel on this important anniversary, but the day should also serve to remind us that the work toward a truly equal society, a society where all citizens are full citizens, must continue with renewed force.
I should like to take this opportunity to commend women's organizations both of yesterday and today for their sense of purpose and for their work toward a just Canada. Their record is already an impressive one. May they go on from strength to strength. Many of my hon. friends within this party and on this side feel very strongly on this whole question. I refer to the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni), the hon. member for Saint Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin). I hope they will have some appropriate comments to make during this discussion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of pleasure that I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) make his statement today commemorating the very important fiftieth anniversary of the Persons case.
As someone who believes strongly in equality for women I compliment the government most heartily on this important

October 18, 1979

public gesture. I would also add in this context that I was pleased to see the recognition given to pioneer Canadian women who contributed to advancing the status of women, in the form of medals presented last night by the Governor General of Canada. 1 know the government is directly involved in those activities as well and it deserves commendation for that action, too.
In this context, and I do not mean it in any partisan sense, 1 was pleased to note that four of the seven women were very active in the cause in which I deeply personally believe. 1 say this given the history of my own party and its forerunner. That, too, is not only a commendation of the women but of the impartiality of the government on this occasion. 1 should like to say in this context that the party I lead in the House of Commons has a long tradition of being concerned with the equality of women, as was recognized last night in those awards. But it is also a continuing battle, and 1 should like to take the opportunity briefly to praise in particular the continuing efforts of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has fought long and hard for the cause of women throughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Having made these points, I want to go on to make some observations of a rather different nature both in tone and substance. The economic leadership which Canadian citizens were promised by the Prime Minister during the recent election campaign has been, in the main, 1 regret to say, lacking in all areas, including that of the equality of women. The government has already had five months in which to initiate measures to respond to the grave economic crisis which literally thousands of Canadian women face today disproportionately-unemployment and lay-offs, cutbacks in vital support services, and an alarming state of poverty clearly documented by the National Council of Welfare. This is the reality after five months of the present government. 1 regret to say that the Conservative response to this embarrassing situation has chiefly been the recycling of election promises, a few regressive proposals and a few token gestures, in addition to the positive things the Prime Minister mentioned today.
In the main the statement of the Prime Minister which we just heard could have been a carbon copy of the election promises which were outlined in his speech on May 6. At that time he stated:
We believe the most effective role for the federal government in promoting the status of women is to set an example.
I use that quotation to raise and answer the question: has that example really been set in the five months the Prime Minister has had since assuming his important office?


Some hon. Members:: Yes!


John Edward Broadbent: I will offer my view now to hon. members opposite. If this is leadership by example, in my view we will
Persons Case
have to wait another 50 years before full equality of women can be realized!
Let me mention just a few examples of the government's inability to provide serious leadership up to this point, not discounting some of the changes which were announced and which have been long over due. During his presentation to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) reaffirmed the Conservatives' election promise to give women a higher priority in Outreach by reinstating some $3 million to the program. That sounds good, but what the minister failed to say yesterday was that he has already admitted that the total budget for women's Outreach projects for this year will amount only to somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000. This paltry sum-and paltry it is for such an important task-will be allocated to only the few women's Outreach programs which survived the Liberal's cutback campaigns of last year.
The point is that the government has simply refused to reinstate worth-while women's projects which were forced to close because of lack of funds, and there are many of them across the country and many which the party in power itself was critical of when it was in opposition, such as Saskatoon's Women in Society Today. Many projects were cut off. They have not been reinstated, and no commitments have been made to any women's Outreach programs for the 1980-81 fiscal year. Surely this is a serious point.
When the government referred to women in the public service, during the election campaign, its members promised that the reduction in the federal public service would have no disproportionate effect on women. Despite this commitment women have continued to be laid off in numbers greater than their labour force participation would indicate, in every single branch of the public service.
Guidelines to ensure that there is no decrease in the number of women working in the public service are simply nowhere to be seen, as was made evident in responses to questions asked by members of my party in the past few days.
Still another election promise was a commitment to:
. . .monitor and recommend changes in public service remuneration scales so that the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value" is effectively applied within the federal service of Canada.
Not only have such recommendations not been forthcoming but, even worse, the government has totally shirked its responsibility in this area. Instead of setting an example for the private sector, the government, as the largest single employer of women workers in the country, is refusing to bargain in good faith with employees in negotiations on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. If the government is committed to the equal pay principle, why are increasing numbers of female public service employees being forced to take their complaints to the Human Rights Commission? The numbers are increasing daily. I refer the Prime Minister specifically to government librarians, psychiatric nurses, home economists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, all of whom have had complaints on this principle.

October 18, 1979
Persons Case
At a September meeting the Minister of Employment and Immigration publicly pledged that, and 1 quote, "No new legislation would discriminate against women". In the next breath the same minister admitted that proposed amendments to the unemployment insurance program might include tougher eligibility requirements for voluntary quitters, many of whom will be women who will quit their jobs-and 1 do not exaggerate-because of sexual harassment. Surely that is a legitimate reason for quitting, and a woman ought not to be punished for that if she has contributed to the unemployment insurance scheme. Many will have to quit because their husbands will change the locations of their jobs and move elsewhere. Surely a woman ought not to be penalized under the unemployment insurance system for that.
1 understand also that serious consideration is being given to a two-tiered benefit structure which would directly affect and tie benefits to family composition. This would deprive many women of the benefits to which they are entitled. It is deeply disturbing to me that the Conservative government is even thinking-let alone acting-about introducing a family-based insurance scheme which would virtually cut off benefits to thousands of married women.
I could go on to a number of matters which ought to be pursued by a government which wants to make constructive change beyond matters of tidying up, to which the Prime Minister referred, but I will conclude at this point by saying that this party is deeply and profoundly, both historically and at present, committed to the idea of equality between men and women, and 1 urge the Prime Minister, if he undertakes one commitment in the life of this Parliament-and I mean in the life of this Parliament-to do everything he can within the framework of federal law to bring the goal of full equality between men and women into being in this Parliament.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: I see that the hon. member for Bellechasse would like to have the floor now. Without prejudice to a previous decision concerning the status of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I am going to recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse. He can start the question period.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to associate myself with the Prime Minister to extend congratulations to Canadian women on the fiftieth anniversary of the recognition of their rights, which gave them the opportunity to participate, as well as men, in all the political activities of our country. I would like to thank and commend all the women who have been decorated last night by the Governor General of Canada and who deserve our congratulations.
It is my pleasure to take this opportunity to declare in this chamber that women have a special role in our country and our society and I look forward to the day when the contribution of housewives will be taken into account in the gross national product. In my opinion, this would be a recognition of an essential contribution on their part.

I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government intends to introduce, in the course of the current session, a bill to take a first step towards setting up a guaranteed minimum income plan. Does the government intend to start with housewives, and will that bill be studied in the first part of the session?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of introducing such a bill, but I am aware that the hon. member has often brought in bills to that effect. We do intend to recommend that changes be made in proceedings on private bills and I can say to the hon. member that if he wants to introduce the same bill again, it will be considered seriously by hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou.


Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I should like to add my good wishes and congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for having underscored, in that fashion, the fiftieth anniversary of the so-called "persons" affair. I followed his speech closely and, as he insisted on an employment strategy for women, I should like to ask him whether he is willing to consider a rather serious problem, which is not mentioned in his speech and of which women on both sides of the House, I believe, still dream naively, that is, that of a women's caucus to help overcome the barriers put up by some bureaucrats and ministers of the right hon. Prime Minister, and to make right the Income Tax Act on the following point: would the Prime Minister agree to sponsor personally, so that it can be included in the coming budget, an amendment to the Income Tax Act providing that women who share the work with their husbands in small and medium businesses-usually rural projects, farms, corner stores, smoke shops, grocery stores, etc.-will be eligible for all privileges with regard to salaries, benefits, whether it be pensions or income tax deductions, as full-fledged employees or partners, as the case may be, of their husbands.
I presume that an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act would also be necessary. I take the liberty of stating in the House that I would have much more confidence in the Prime Minister than in his colleagues responsible for national revenue and finance.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member who is, I believe, a former minister of national revenue, that I am prepared to discuss this with my two colleagues to see exactly what are the problems related to the implementation of such an amendment.
It may be something which has already been proposed by some male members, particularly the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). It is something that we would consider when preparing a budget. I know that the hon.
October 18, 1979

member recognizes the fact that I cannot foresee at present what will be the contents of the budget.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to congratulate the right hon. member (Mr. Clark) on some of his statements this afternoon which were most encouraging. In all sincerity, I hope that the Prime Minister's good and sincere views will not be obscured by some of the other talk which we hear from other members of his party. For instance, when the Prime Minister spoke about employment strategies for women, I am sure he was aware that one of the major obstacles to women's entrance into the labour force and to their long-time attachment to the labour force is lack of adequate child support.
As I said two days ago in the House when 1 brought in a motion under Standing Order 43, the Law Reform Commission itself estimated that as many as 75 per cent of maintenance orders are just not paid. On the one hand, the Prime Minister said he will give more freedon to private members and to committees to do more work in the House, but that particular motion under Standing Order 43 was denied by a member of his party.
Would the Prime Minister agree to look into a possible amendment of the divorce act so that maintenance orders can be enforced across Canada and thereby women helped in the support of their children, which is quite legitimate, by the way?


Charles Joseph Clark: I can certainly give the undertaking that the government will look into the possibility of an amendment of that kind.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also join other hon. members in commending the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for his statements, however limited they were today.
1 have a question for him, but first I would just like to mention that after 50 years there continue to be major changes to be made before women gain equality. Although we are now officially persons, we are still very much second class citizens. Statistics show that the wage gap between men and women continues to widen. Women earn 56 per cent less than men.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister to commemorate this anniversary, and in particular to honour an outstanding former member of Parliament, Grace Maclnnis, who helped poor people to found the National Anti-Poverty Organization. This is an organization of poor persons, most of them women, and I might say that the branch in British Columbia, the Federated Anti-Poverty Group, cannot even afford to have a telephone or money for postage stamps for their organization. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Department of National Health and Welfare to provide adequate ongoing grants for affiliates of the National Anti-Poverty Organization to enable them to maintain offices, to organize and to develop self-help programs?
Persons Case


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me preface my answer by welcoming the hon. member, who will obviously carry on the distinguished tradition of her predecessor who was honoured last night by the Governor General.
As the hon. member knows, we have indicated our intention to establish a select committee of the House of Commons to look into the question of the voluntary sector generally and ways in which the policies of the Government of Canada can be changed to encourage various voluntary organizations. I would hope that there would be an opportunity for that committee to take a look at the particular case she has raised. In the meantime, I will take a look at that particular case. I want it understood that I am not giving an undertaking at this stage to do anything more than look into the matter, but we will certainly do that to see if it would be possible, within our present priorities and flexibility, to extend the kind of aid for which the hon. member asks.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) correctly identified older women as often finding themselves with no or very low pensions. I should like to ask him whether he plans to discuss again with the Ontario government the question of allowing women who are temporarily out of the labour force because they are caring for young children to drop those years of no or low earnings from the final computation of the Canada Pension Plan? This has often been suggested as a solution to the problem of women who have interrupted their careers. During the last Parliament, Ontario was the only one of the provinces which would not agree to this solution.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would want to refresh my memory on the exact position taken by the Canadian and Ontario governments. 1 will give an undertaking to the hon. member that I will do that. I would draw to her attention the fact that we intend to have a committee, or a subcommittee of one of the standing committees of the House, look into the entire pension question or the retirement income question. While I expect that much of the consideration in those hearings would focus upon matters directly within the federal jurisdiction, there may well be the opportunity to flag areas in which initiatives could be taken by the provinces. If those initiatives are real and substantial, I would certainly be prepared to discuss them, or to have them discussed, with the provincial counterparts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Quick consultation with the rules will remind hon. members that it is within the discretion of the Speaker with regard to these sorts of statements to decide whether or not to allow a brief question period. We have had one and I would not want to stop it now. Questions have been brief and to the point, and so have the answers, but there is an increasing number of members who wish to participate and I wonder, having regard to the nature of the statement, how long that should be allowed to continue.

October 18, 1979
Persons Case


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions. I am sure the Prime Minister will welcome the first one, but 1 hope he will welcome the second one as well. The first question I should like to ask the Prime Minister is whether he does not feel that the name of Agnes Macphail should be mentioned today. She was the first woman elected to the House of Commons and, in doing so, she blazed a very significant trail.
My second question relates to the Prime Minister's reference to a committee study of the pension situation of women. May I ask if he will join me in making sure that that study includes a look at the very unfair provision in most pension plans, both public and private, which results in the situation that, if the wife dies first, the husband's pension is 100 per cent but, if the husband dies first, the wife's pension is only 50 per cent? I hope it is not going to take 50 years to correct that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member asks if that would be within the powers of inquiry of the committee. I can give him the assurance that it will be, at least in so far as it relates to public pension plans. As regards Agnes Macphail, certainly it is appropriate not only for her contribution to be mentioned but for her contribution to be mentioned by the hon. member. I must relate to the House the note passed to me by my colleague, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald), which points out that there have been only 28 women here since that time.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. His party had a secret paper, which became public, regarding changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act that would affect voluntary quits, as my leader has pointed out, mostly women, maternity benefits, and the two-tier system. There is much concern in the public about this among women's groups and trade union groups from coast to coast. Can the Prime Minister give an unequivocal commitment to the House that any changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which are brought down in the future, will not affect any of these particular aspects of the unemployment insurance program, which obviously would discriminate against women?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot and will not give an unequivocal commitment that none of the proposals brought forward will not be subject to that criticism. I wonder if the hon. member can give me an unequivocal indication as to how so many of these private reports become public.


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier I saw two other members on their feet.
I think we should conclude the questioning with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway was represented, as Your Honour knows, from 1965 to 1974 by Grace Maclnnis, and I
[Mr. Speaker.)
am very proud to have succeeded her. I hope I can live up to the work which she did in the House.


An hon. Member:: What about Simma Holt?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The least said the better. If Grace Maclnnis were here she would say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), "Thank you for the rhetoric, but let us get down to brass tacks". I have a question for the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) who, I believe, is responsible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Then 1 will direct my question to the Prime Minister with reference to this matter. The Prime Minister's mother was mentioned, so perhaps I might draw the question from something my mother told me. As a widow and a pensioner, she receives just in excess of $3,000 a year from the government, whereas the Vancouver Sun indicates that the president of MacMillan-Bloede! receives something in excess of $360,000 a year when one counts the salary, the benefits, the shares and stocks. Is the Prime Minister prepared to look into the matter of income distribution between elderly women and other people in the community like the president of MacMillan-Bloedel?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think a fair amount of ideology was smuggled into that question. Certainly we are not proposing to adopt what I take to be the hon. member's views on income distribution.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, including this afternoon, the Prime Minister has expressed his intention to amend the Indian Act to allow native women who are presently excluded from official Indian status to be included, in the future. Does he plan to make that retroactive and, if so, what provisions is he willing to make to ensure that the 300,000 people who presently enjoy, if I can use that term, official Indian status, will not be overwhelmed and will not suffer by the addition of 800,000 more people with that status over night?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the House will know that the question of this amendment has been one of great contention between governments of both parties and the Indian community in the country. For some time there has been the hope, on the part of the predecessor government and ourselves, that the National Indian Brotherhood would come forward with a formula for amendment. I have indicated to the National Indian Brotherhood that the Government of Canada cannot continue to wait for their proposals. However, we are engaged in very extensive consultation with them as to the form of the amendment, in the hope that we can have an amendment which will be satisfactory to Indians whether male or female. Naturally one of the questions considered in that consultation is the effect upon exisiting reserves and existing status Indians of the amendment we introduce. I cannot answer the hon. member specifically today, except to say that is a matter on which we are seeking advice from the Indian community as well as elsewhere.
October 18, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: 1 know there are other hon. members who certainly could put questions if the time were extended, but in deference to the rather brief question period referred to, 1 think the questioning has been adequate.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, like others I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. 1 add my congratulations to those previously extended to the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald). Following as 1 am upon the heels of the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and other speakers respecting the event which has now become known as Persons Day, and which honours the great decision of the Privy Council on the matter of women's rights, may 1 add to the roster of women who have distinguished themselves in this chamber in the past the name of Coline Campbell. She was the first woman elected to the House of Commons from Nova Scotia and represented the constituency of South Western Nova.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: It is in the spirit which pervades this day of non-partisanship that I mention that, and I apologize to the current hon. member for South West Nova (Mr. Haliburton) who so successfully succeeded her.
Also I want to record my best wishes to Mr. Speaker on his re-election. The House will continue to depend upon Your Honour's sage counsel to guide its proceedings. 1 should like to make special reference to the work of the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), since he is from the neighbouring province of New Brunswick and, that recommends him to my favour. Also he happens to be one of the foremost debaters on the floor of the House. Even though he will not be participating further in our debates, his knowledge of the forensic arts will guide those of us who have lesser abilities, and his presence will grace the chair.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) spoke eloquently of the death of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Official Opposition-he departed this chamber but his spirit lingers on. I am proud to have served with him in the House. Equally I am proud to have served with the former hon. member for Halifax, Mr. Robert Stanfield. While no longer a member of the House he continues to serve the people of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Crosby
It is a tradition to express good wishes to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada and his lady, but I want to do more than that. I ask Mr. Speaker to convey to Their Excellencies the best wishes of the people of Halifax West, as well as my own compliments. Very recently we in Nova Scotia were honoured by a visit from the Governor General and Mrs. Schreyer. 1 am happy to say that they were royally received by Nova Scotians, and they responded to that welcome with regal grace. I utilize these royal words to underline the fact that the Governor General is the representative of the Queen of Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. We in Nova Scotia are not ashamed to express the esteem we hold for the Queen and the Royal Family. We are equally proud of the British tradition which allows the Queen to have her special representatives in Canada and in Nova Scotia, and we accord proper honour to them.
In the same tradition we honour the duly elected representatives of the Canadian people. I want to record my congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister and the members of his ministry, particularly my fellow Nova Scotian, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), now the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I will speak more about the necessity of expanding the role of his department in the Atlantic region.
My reference to the Atlantic region reminds me that this area is not always understood by the citizens of other parts of Canada. Often we are regarded by Canadians as a drain on the national economy. But it must be recognized that today many parts of the maritimes, and particularly Nova Scotia, rival the best areas of Canada. The city of Halifax and its surroundings now comprise one of the finest urban areas in North America.
We have in Halifax West two of the most progressive and developing areas in Nova Scotia, Bedford and Sackville; in fact, Bedford will become Nova Scotia's newest town in 1980. Halifax West with its 100,000 residents and 65,000 electors is the largest constituency on the east coast; it has the lowest unemployment rate, the highest per capita income, and the highest percentage of home ownership in eastern Canada. We are not looking for handouts, but we do require incentives and sensible assistance as we seek to develop our physical and human resources. It is in that light that we examine the Speech from the Throne.
Let me say very quickly that we appreciate the substantive matters and the possibility of new directions for Canada indicated in the speech, and I will comment more specifically on these matters. There is, however, a real omission from the throne speech that is of vital concern to me; I have in mind the plight of the Canadian Armed Forces and the public service of Canada.
In the case of the Canadian Armed Forces, their voting record over the years tells the tale. I will dispense with a review of the statistics and simply say that the support they recently accorded members on this side of the House from the

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Crosby
Halifax area was overwhelming. While my colleagues, like the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), have been diligent in their support of the armed forces, we must recognize that we made commitments that now must be fulfilled.
In summary, we undertook to increase the complement of the armed forces from 79,000 to approximately 85,000. We undertook to improve equipment so that our forces could comply with NATO standards. And we must select a new fighter plane and implement a fighter plane acquisition program so that our air element is not embarrassed internationally-
Not the least important of the concerns of the members of the armed forces is their rate of pay. We demand their loyalty and their devotion to duty, but we must recognize that they live in society and must pay for the goods and services in the same way as other citizens. If servicemen and women are to retain their pride in their uniform and in themselves, they must receive adequate compensation.
I am heartened by the statement of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) that the armed forces would receive a pay increase effective October 1. 1 hope it will be a reasonable one and will not be frittered away by increased rentals and other internal expenses. In the words of our Prime Minister, "There is no higher calling than service to one's country. But the country must support the people who have decided to serve."
Let me also record some remarks in support of the public service of Canada. In the last Parliament members of government engaged in what became known as "public service bashing". After 16 years, during which the government allowed civil service standards to decline and structures to decay, the government turned on its employees and blamed them for the evils of government. Instead of working with representatives of government employees to remove the cancers that had grown within the public service, the former ministers attempted to manipulate the surgeon's knife and they spread havoc among their employees. The cutbacks resulted in the loss of the fisheries laboratory and other productive activities.
It never ceases to amaze me that intelligent men can expect to govern Canada without the assistance of public servants, employees who must be dedicated, capable, and willing to perform their duties. We can only expect a proper return from our public servants if we allow them to bargain collectively for their vital employment terms and if we refrain from abusing our legislative power over them. In this connection I hope and trust our government will not make the same mistake as its predecessor, and that it will not introduce legislation affecting public servants and their employment without consulting their representatives.
I must mention this, Mr. Speaker. We propose to reduce the size of the federal public service. Many public servants recognize there is waste and over-staffing and that the situation must be remedied. I ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) to remember that these employees have rights,

and that he should deal with them fairly and with respect for their rights.
I said the Speech from the Throne contained the promise of a new direction of government in Canada. Nowhere can that new direction be better demonstrated than in the matter of regional development and in the field of energy.
With regard to regional economic development, we were told that the mandate of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would be strengthened by legislation. I will watch for the introduction of this legislation with great interest, and I am sure that interest will be shared by a great many people in Atlantic Canada.
The concept of a department of government to review and rectify regional disparity is valid and viable, but that department must be at the heart of the central government. It must be properly financed, and unfettered by statutory restrictions.
1 believe the current function of DREE is too narrow in scope and is unnecessarily confined by law and legal definition. There must be federal-provincial co-operation, but the requirement for pre-agreement tends to delay the dawn of real economic progress. We must place more faith in the people involved and rely less on their written words. In short, we want expansion and development, not legalistic arguments; action, not words.
I said DREE must be at the heart of government, and that may necessitate the promotion of the minister to the inner cabinet. I am in favour of that for several reasons.
The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) reminded his fellow Nova Scotians that he was part of the inner circle of the late Liberal government. He scolded the Prime Minister for not according our Nova Scotia minister the same status. It is true that the hon. member sat by the throne of the former prime minister, but Nova Scotians paid a price for his status. He was singled out for his unselfish ways, for keeping his eye on the national interest; Sydney Steel crumbled, the Donkin coal mines lay undeveloped, the Halifax shipyards were idle and oil supplies were diverted from the east coast, but the procedures of this House were handled with great care and attention. If that is what having the ear of the prime minister does for Nova Scotia, then I suggest our minister stay in the outer cabinet and demand dollars for us instead of dinner parties.
I see that the clock is approaching six, Mr. Speaker. If it pleases Your Honour, I would call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: If the House agrees, it is now six o'clock. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
October 18, 1979
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the evening recess permitted an opportunity to reflect upon my remarks concerning the former member for South West Nova who, as you will recall, 1 said was the first woman elected from the province of Nova Scotia to this chamber. I did not want to imply, nor would I want anybody to infer, that we were not perfectly satisfied with the new member for South West Nova, who also served in this House, I believe, between 1972 and 1974. In no way did I wish to imply that the people of Nova Scotia should consider returning that woman to this House. While she served well, once was enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were right the first time.


Howard Edward Crosby: I said earlier that the Speech from the Throne contained the promise for new direction of government in Canada, and 1 reviewed the possibility of that direction in the field of regional disparity. I would like to continue my comments on the throne speech and its contents.
We on the Atlantic coast realize that many of our hopes for the future rest with the rapid development of the fishing industry, and we await anxiously the white paper mentioned in the throne speech. We also welcome new developments in agriculture. There is no finer person in this House than the man who now heads that ministry. I know that he will be warmly welcomed in Atlantic Canada. We are also pleased that shipbuilding and the merchant marine will receive special attention from the government.
The Speech from the Throne mentioned the goal of self-sufficiency in energy by 1990 and recognized the role of the provinces in achieving this end. For me, this is a vital challenge for both the national and our provincial governments. If we cannot achieve energy self-sufficiency and acceptable cost burdens, all other economic measures are doomed to failure, and we will lose our quest for improved social and living conditions for all Canadians. Energy self-sufficiency means more than an adequate and secure supply of fuels and generation.
Equally important as the availability of supply is the price we must pay for energy. Energy self-sufficiency will not be achieved in Canada if one part of the nation pays twice the price for gas or petroleum products as another part. Self-sufficiency will be meaningless if Nova Scotians pay twice the price for gas or electricity as other Canadians.
In the late 1950s the national government decided that all Canadians should have medical care and that that care should conform to a national standard. Medicare became a reality. I believe a wise national government would recognize a similar national standard for energy and say that no Canadian should have to pay more than the national average price for the energy he or she consumes. The Nova Scotia government and most Nova Scotians believe our goal should not be limited to energy self-sufficiency on the supply side, but should also extend and include a national average price limitation on the cost side.
The Nova Scotian government under Premier John Buchanan is working to resolve the energy problem in my province,
The Address-Mr. Crosby
and I believe the problem can be resolved with diligence and intelligence, but federal government assistance is required. Premier Buchanan recently announced his energy policy for Nova Scotia. His course of action combines intelligence, common sense and resourcefulness. He has designed an energy system for Nova Scotia that incorporates diversity and flexibility. At the same time it minimizes environmental risk and maximizes social and economic benefits.
Nova Scotia's previous energy policies left the province dependent on foreign crude oil for almost 85 per cent of its energy requirements. The remaining requirements are met by coal and hydro. Taking Canada as a whole, only 44 per cent of the total energy requirement is met by crude oil, and much of that crude oil is provided domestically. Middle East and other world-wide developments have left Nova Scotia with a high cost source of energy and an uncertain one.
The picture becomes clear in relation to domestic and industrial electricity: 65 per cent of electricity is generated with petroleum derived from imported crude. The solution to the problem is equally clear: Nova Scotia must displace foreign crude with Canadian energy sources. To that end Nova Scotia seeks to develop its coal resources. Estimates indicate a coal resource of 3.5 billion tons in various coal fields. In areas ready for immediate development such as Donkin, Cape Breton, there is said to be 2.6 billion tons, with 800 million tons recoverable using current technology. But federal assistance is required.
While coal production is the major thrust in displacing foreign crude, exploration for oil and gas is a major concern and a real hope for the future. Discoveries in the Sable Island area are being assessed, and the tempo of development and exploration in that area must be accelerated.
The activity in Sable Island and other oil exploration prompts me to mention Petro-Canada. The operations of this agency are complex and not easily understood. I endorse the concept of "privatization". Years in government and public service convince me that government must respect those activities that properly belong to the private sector. Nonetheless, the research activities formerly sponsored by PetroCan must be continued. If they are not, all Canadians will suffer but, in the east, we will suffer more. The report of the task force on PetroCan has indicated this vital work of exploration will continue.
In this connection, Nova Scotians applaud the turnover of offshore mineral rights to the provinces. This does not mean the federal authority cannot play a role in exploration and development. It does give the coastal eastern provinces a chance to achieve a new financial economic status.
At present, utilization of Canadian oil and gas resources involves a serious transportation problem for east coast provinces. Marine transport of Arctic gas is being considered, and a proposal for an east coast pipeline is now before the National Energy Board. These developments are being carefully monitored by the Nova Scotia government.

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Daudlin
More imaginative solutions to energy problems include the development of Fundy tidal power and research activity in coal gasification. The economics of processing coal to liquid fuel is being vigorously pursued. These ventures require immediate federal attention and aid. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), in his usual thoughtful way, described in detail the possibility of employing peat and other natural fuels to displace expensive foreign crude. His suggestion deserves attention. We would like to see the Annapolis River tidal project implemented immediately.
The challenge in the Speech from the Throne and the challenge for Canada and Nova Scotia is clear: we must solve the energy problem. I am confident that Premier Buchanan and the Nova Scotia government are on the right road to meet that challenge. I am equally confident the Prime Minister will assist us to deal with the energy problem. He has spoken in this House and elsewhere about the necessity of rectifying the economic imbalance in Canada. He understands federal-provincial relations. He recognizes the special needs of Atlantic Canada.
Changing the direction of government in Canada means providing the kind of assistance that leads to self-reliance and self-sufficiency. That is what we want in Nova Scotia, and with this new direction that is what we can achieve.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I hear some of my friends on the left indicating that this is perhaps my maiden speech. 1 suspect those friends were here during the last Parliament but they must have absented themselves from the House for a long, long time, otherwise they would have heard me speak from time to time.


An hon. Member:: Stanley never hangs in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You look so young.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: It is because I look so young, and it is out of envy that they say that, I think.
It is a distinct honour to be able to participate in this first debate of this Parliament. Like those before me, I would like to congratulate Mr. Speaker on having been chosen once more by this chamber to represent us. As a member who now finds himself on this side of the Speaker's chair, albeit temporarily I am sure, your presence in the chair will afford me an even greater opportunity to benefit from the keen wit and wise judgment referred to earlier by members of this House. I intend to avail myself of those qualities often.
1 join with other members who have participated in this debate in extending my compliments to the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) for their contributions in moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I should as well, by way of preamble to my comments this evening, express my appreciation to the electors of Essex-Kent for their reaffirmation and confidence in my ability to serve their interests in this Parliament. I believe I share with other members of this House the combined pride and humility that

follow from being chosen one of the relatively few spokesmen for the entire population of Canada.
Following the redistribution which took effect on the dissolution of the last House, the constituency which I now represent lost the community of Chatham in the northeast, and with it the substantial urban population which had brought the balance of an urban oriented citizenry to an essentially agricultural riding. With the loss of Chatham the riding has gained an almost totally agricultural area by acquiring two townships, Harwich and Colchester South, together with the larger communities of Blenheim and Harrow. I would be remiss if I did not welcome those new areas to the riding.
As I have indicated, the riding of Essex-Kent is now predominantly rural, with abundant agricultural activity, which included most recently the hosting of the International Plowing Match. This was officially opened by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). Because of the agricultural nature of the riding one might expect, and I would go further and suggest my constituents would have cause to be disappointed if I did not examine closely the Throne Speech to find how it proposes to deal with so important and vital a part of our economy as agriculture and the production of food.
I listened attentively to the Speech from the Throne when we were in the other place. I examined and re-examined the written copy of the Speech from the Throne, bearing in mind that the present government had taken great pains to put itself on record during the last election as stating that it was the direct and continuing responsibility of a federal government to support the agricultural industry aggressively. Yet, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding meticulous examination of the throne speech and the avowed commitment of that government during the most recent campaign, what I find is that essentially there has been an omission to mention agriculture in the throne speech. One would have to look elsewhere to find any statement of continuing commitment on the part of the Prime Minister or his cabinet to producers of food in this nation.
I cannot overlook either the fact that when the Prime Minister, in putting together his new cabinet, thought so little of his party's commitment, oft repeated during the campaign, of high profile and high importance to the agricultural sector, he opted while selecting those of the inner and those of the outer cabinet to decide that in fact the Minister of Agriculture should be relegated to a position of secondary importance, which neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the people of this nation, and particularly the agricultural producers should be prepared to accept.
The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, has said that it is time to quit fighting the last election and to move on. But I believe it is important, if we are to determine where this government may be wanting to go, given that it has failed to provide us with a blueprint or plan of action for agriculture in the throne speech, that we look at what that party, through its representatives, was heard to say in the campaign.
The promises were many, Mr. Speaker. They promised they would bring in new ideas and new initiatives to the federal agricultural policy. In fact the Minister of Agriculture, when
October 18, 1979

he was critic of that portfolio, put himself on record in this House as stating, for instance on milk policy, that the import quota on cheese in this country should be reduced by some 10 million pounds at the very least. And yet in his first actions in dealing with that very dairy policy, the minister and his government has not included any such action in any announcements that I am able to find. But he has indicated in some talks that he had privately with some producers elsewhere in the nation that it would perhaps still be a good idea to reduce those imports. And yet when one discusses this with officials, one determines no such action is planned. It leads one to the conclusion that, having assumed the reins of power, they may have now decided that, in fact, the previous administration was correct in the levels which had been set and that no reduction should take place, or alternatively they are unprepared to accept the consequences of reducing the quotas to a level to which they claim to be philosophically committed.
At another time, Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the government suggested that they would be working toward reduction of the escalating costs of farm inputs, including machinery, fertilizer, interest rates and so on, in order to lower the cost of production. Those were the promises, but what have been the actions? Machinery prices have not gone down; they have gone up, and will go up further if, in fact, the energy cost increases proposed by this government are allowed to take place. The cost of fertilizer has not gone down; it has gone up and, indeed, the level of future prices can only be speculated upon if one is to assume that natural gas will be linked to the relative costs of other oil-based energy. One can only cringe at the thought of the possible cost of a bag of nitrate in the spring of 1980.
Then, of course, there is the matter of interest rates, Mr. Speaker. If it were not so serious it would almost be funny. I can recall sitting on the other side of the House and listening to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), then critic, arguing long and hard-one thought then without much real commitment to the idea, but with a healthy dose of partisanship-that increase after increase was wrong, that it would lead to inflation, that it would have a detrimental impact on the lives of the people of Canada, that it should be fully discussed by Parliament before being allowed to take place, that the minister should not slavishly follow the dictates of the governor of the Bank of Canada, and indeed, the movements of the industry in the United States.
Now what has happened, Mr. Speaker? Conversion, a seeing of the light! Perhaps they have accepted that it was the right thing to do. Now they seem to argue that it was wrong then and right now. In any event, they seem to have a renewed faith in the Bank of Canada and a sudden inspirational understanding of what has happened for the last three years. It is almost enough to shake one's confidence. But as bad as those things are, they do not hold a candle to something else. And indeed, maybe all that we are going to have left for light in this country is candles if, in fact, this government is allowed
The Address-Mr. Daudlin
to continue to do what it proposes to do by way of PetroCan and the petrochemical industry.
It would now appear that they have reached a decision to move immediately, precipitously and, in my view, unthinkingly towards world prices, regardless of the cost of replacement, regardless of the cost necessary to assure exploration, and regardless of the cost of production. Perhaps I could stand by and I could argue against it, and perhaps I could almost argue detachedly were it not for the fact that I am so completely convinced of the incredible impact, yes, the incredible, detrimental impact that this will have on the food production industry in this nation.
The previous administration, in an attempt to assure continued supply and continuity of supply, in an attempt to move prices upward, while buffering and cushioning the Canadian public from the adverse effects of abrupt changes upward in oil pricing that had been experienced throughout the world as a result of OPEC decisions, saw input costs in the agricultural sector increase dramatically, and I have heard, and members of this House have heard the reasons for those increases.
Many have accepted them and others have argued that it was wrong. But they were accepted, they were imposed, they were lived with, and the farmers of this nation were put into a cost squeeze that has reached crisis proportions. The agricultural industry is one industry that cannot conveniently pass on its input costs to the consuming public. If and when it does, the impact on the consumer of increased prices for food results in CPI figures like were announced today, showing this nation once again moving toward and shortly into double digit inflation.
Only a few short years ago one of the least concerning input costs in agriculture may have been energy. I suggest, as I attempted only last week to point out in my questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Minister of Agriculture, that the time has now arrived when the agricultural producers of this country must be given absolutely clear and unequivocal assurances by this government that they are wanted, that they are needed, that, in fact, this government is going to give the assistance necessary to assure their continued existence and is going to provide mechanisms that will protect them against the rising costs of energy as it relates to the cost of the production of food.
So that there can be no confusion, and so that members of this House may understand that I am not spreading alarm unduly, that I am not creating a false crisis, let me offer some examples. In 1971 in Canada the farming community spent $264,708,000 on petroleum, diesel oil, and lubricants for machinery. By 1978 for the same products the price had risen to $519,600,000. Another important statistic to remember is that primary agriculture alone accounts for about 3 per cent of all the energy consumed in this country.
Getting a little closer to home, let me point to the greenhouse industry, one of the most energy intensive industries in this country, an industry worth in Essex county alone some $20 million per year in gross production on a direct basis, without taking into account the salaries involved in packing, in

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Daudlin
transportation, in sales-an industry that has been threatened by the moves that are taking place. Some 62 per cent of the input costs for the production of food in these greenhouses goes to heat them.
There are growers in that constituency, in that industry, who in 1973 were paying 15 cents per gallon for light oil. Two days ago those same growers were paying 59.78 cents per gallon, an increase of almost 400 per cent. At the same time you must recognize that the actual return to the producer for those same crops in gross terms has not yet even doubled. One can immediately comprehend the nature and the extent of the problem. I do not think I overstate the case by suggesting that if in fact the kind of price increases that this government is now contemplating are allowed to take place, they would destroy the greenhouse industry. That $20 million industry in the county of Essex, and the extension of that industry is found in Kent county, in Lambton county, and indeed in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) as well as in the Niagara peninsula, will find itself hard pressed, and in fact impossible to continue.
It was for that reason 1 raised the question last week. In fact I have had meetings with the Minister of Agriculture since that time. I do not propose merely to point at the problem. I do not propose to suggest that in fact it is a terrible thing and somebody has to do something about it. I have suggested to the ministers, both in the House and privately, that there is a solution to this difficulty that this industry is in the throes of experiencing. I would almost say I have implored those ministers to consider the possibility that if in fact they are going to proceed as a government with the kind of price increases they are talking about, that the agricultural industry as a whole, and the greenhouse industry specifically, should be exempted from those increases.
How that could and should be done would be to fix the cost of energy as an input cost in food production at the level which it was in the spring of 1979, by way of returns, after application and indication by the growers that they were in fact true food input costs. This would be much the way in which we now deal with the situation for taxation on gasoline for farm vehicles. In the same manner the growers should be allowed to make application to the Department of National Revenue for rebates that would sustain the level of their energy input costs for the production of their food at the levels they were at in 1979, which 1 think most members will agree are already high enough to make it very difficult for even a good grower. I suggest that some consideration be given by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Agriculture to a mechanism such as that, or to some other mechanism which would accomplish the same end.
The only way in which we shall be able to maintain the agricultural industry in general and the greenhouse industry in particular, which in the past has had to sustain too great an impact in terms of energy policy, would be through the adoption of a proposal of this kind. The impact of rising prices

for diesel fuel, nitrates used for the production of fertilizer, and natural gas used for heating, including, particularly, the heating of greenhouses, will be such that producers will not be able to pass it on to consumers because, if they were to do so, the cost of the basic food basket which goes to make up the CPI would send us into a frightening inflationary spiral. 1 am sure none of us in this House wish to see either producers or consumers placed in a position where they are unable to protect themselves.
In the early production years of the Alberta oil fields the greenhouse industry in Essex County was made to pay higher prices for oil than it would otherwise have been obliged to pay if there had been access to the offshore oil then available to areas of Quebec through the Port of Montreal. In the early fifties the consumers of Ontario, and particularly agricultural consumers, were paying prices for oil higher than world prices so that sufficient moneys could be diverted to the Alberta oil industry to enable that industry to be sustained and developed. The producers in my riding are now saying: "Isn't it odd that we should have been made to pay those prices and sustain those costs for the benefit of Albertans in the fifties and now, when we are seeing greenhouses going up for sale and lacking buyers, the oil producers are calling for more and more and more?"
Mr. Speaker, I do not only plead with this government which appears bent upon a policy of increasing those prices. I look beyond this government to the premiers of the provinces which are producing this energy, and ask them to remember and consider what consumers did for them some years ago. I believe 1 must go beyond this government because it seems to be bent on bargaining with the price of energy in order to obtain the consensus it hopes to achieve. It appears, though, if reports are to be believed, that such a consensus will be elusive indeed.
I would not want, by reason of the emphasis I have placed on the energy matter, to leave this House with the impression 1 feel the only agriculturally oriented policy which should have been touched upon by the government in the Speech from the Throne should be concerned with energy and its impact on the cost of production of food. There are other areas that the government should, in my view, have addressed in the Speech from the Throne if it was anxious to provide assurances to the food producers of the nation that there continues to be, and will continue to be, a place for them in the economic fabric of Canada.
The minister said much outside the House in the course of pronouncements during the campaign about the Farm Credit Corporation. In various statements while he was opposition critic he was most supportive of that corporation. Indeed, he has spoken in quite favourable terms of the need to provide new funding sources. But he appears to have taken little or no action since the government came to office to turn his commitment into actions. Perhaps this would not be so bad, in the circumstances, were it not for the fact that there continues to be difficulty in funding farm credit.
October 18, 1979

Right at this time of the year young farmers, attempting to get loans to purchase new farms which they can ill-afford to buy at the present bank rate, find the Farm Credit Corporation saying, "We would love to take your application, but of course you must realize that it will be taken purely upon the basis of our being able to fund it next year when we hope to have more money." It alarms me to read in a newspaper. The Ottawa Journal of October 12, that this corporation, one which persons like myself which represent agricultural areas have always wanted and always been willing to support, should be suggesting it wishes to move into the direction of privatization, as seems to be the aim of the government, and in so doing to remove the competitive advantage which was given it to ensure that it does, in fact, make money available to young farmers in Canada who are trying to buy land at prices that are spiralling out of sight, leaving them in a position where they could not reasonably expect to get that other 200 acres of land, or 300, or 500 or what-have-you.
It is indeed alarming to find that the Farm Credit Corporation, through its chairman, should feel that its competitive advantage over the banks should be reduced, leaving the corporation and the banks on roughly the same ground. This seems to me to go directly against the fundamental principles upon which the FCC was instituted in the first place and it scares me, frankly, when I think of those young farmers in my riding who are finding it ever more difficult to buy land at $6,000 or $7,000 an acre.
In my view it is essential that the Farm Credit Corporation should be given legislation which would allow it to go for funding to sources other than the Treasury Board. It has always lacked that capacity and I, for one, would be prepared to support the Minister of Agriculture as far as possible from this side of the House to ensure that action is taken quickly along those lines in order that farmers should have access to those funds so as to get into the production of food.
If it seems I am being overly persistent in these matters it is only because I have seen no indication by the new government of its stand on any of these vital questions. I might refer to the area of research and development in the agricultural sector. It is of the utmost importance that a country with such bountiful land, land capable of being even more productive, should develop it to the fullest extent, to the benefit not only of ourselves but of the world where far too many people are dying of malnutrition and starvation. It is imperative that there be a strong endorsement and encouragement of research and development in all areas of food production and distribution. The realization of Canada's future agricultural potential must be achieved by advances in skill, techniques, and expertise.
I would be remiss if I did not express the sentiments of the majority of the members of this House-yes, even hon. members opposite-that the hon. member who previously occupied the post of minister of agriculture was viewed very warmly by members of this House and by the producing communities across this nation who, for the most part, were satisfied that
The Address-Mr. Daudlin
great achievements were made in agriculture through the efforts of that man. Regardless of what achievements were made, valuable time has been lost since the election, and such absence of progress in changing times is regression.
The previous administration fought hard to achieve negotiated settlements of bilateral trade agreements on horticultural products for the fruit and vegetable crop producers of this nation. I can but hope and urge very sincerely that substantial priority be given by the government to re-introducing and bringing forward appropriate legislation which would allow the implementation of the bilateral negotiations and assure for producers the guarantees and advantages achieved by those negotiations.
I am particularly worried about the rumours we hear that certain segments of a bilateral agreement are being bartered away and that we may now be seeing certain interest groups in the country suggesting to the government that tariffs on tomato paste, for instance, should be removed because there is not currently a tomato paste industry. We negotiated and fought for seven years.
We tried to obtain for the producers of this nation the kind of tariff protection which now exists in that bilateral agreement and which would have created a milieu in this country which would induce new industry and bring to Canada its own tomato paste industry for consumers of that product in Canada. It also would have put Canada on the map in terms of international production of tomato paste. 1 think all of us knew that that would not happen and could not come about unless and until we had in place the kind of guarantees which would assure companies the opportunity to come, to start off well, and to be able to stay. Having achieved that, we now hear that there are those who would have the government remove those tariffs because the industry is not yet here. 1 argue as strongly as I can that the alternative to that is not to remove but to allow a remission until such time as the new industry is here.
Because there is no Canadian industry, in my view to remit is fair. To remove entirely what has been so hard fought for by producers would be throw our hands up and say we never want to see a Canadian tomato paste industry. I think this has to be dealt with quickly. The uncertainty which now surrounds this matter has to be removed, and we have to indicate that the government is committed to the introduction of such a new industry to Canada.
I would like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance that it might be appropriate on the fiftieth anniversary of the "persons" decision, under which women were considered persons within the definition of the BN A Act for purposes of their selection and entry to the Senate, that those ministers consider the plight today of women involved in agriculture and small business who, by reason of lack of incorporation, find themselves in the position of being integral parts of the farm or small business unit, putting in untold hours of labour on tractors and combines, or perhaps behind the counters of small businesses, and unable to draw salaries which would otherwise be paid to non-spouses or

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. G. Taylor
non-family and, alternatively, if salaries are drawn, receiving money which cannot validly be deducted as expenses.
I believe it is time that this inequity was removed. Fifty years should have been long enough to afford us the opportunity to work out mechanisms which would allow such inequities to be removed from our taxation legislation so that all persons involved in agriculture and small business could receive and have deducted fair compensation for the valuable work they do.
I see that my time has about expired. I thank the House for its patience. Through its action I ask the government to demonstrate-in spite of the absence of this in the Throne Speech-that it has a continuing, vital interest in agriculture and that in fact it is prepared to say to the farmers of this nation, "We still want you; we will do what is necessary to support you".


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River);: Mr. Speaker, I count it an honour, a privilege, and a challenge to have been elected to this House by the people of the constituency of Bow River, and I am very happy to take part in this debate.
At the outset I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder on the splendid addresses they both delivered. Their material was excellent, and their presentations were clear and eloquent.
The Bow River riding is a new constituency. It is made up roughly of 30 per cent of three former constituencies, Palliser, Rocky Mountain, and Crowfoot, with the balance coming from the Lethbridge constituency. The Bow River constituency has virtually everything. It has one of the seven wonders of the world, Lake Louise, and some of the most talked about tourist items in Canada, including the townsite of Banff, nestled in the majestic mountains, and the city of Drumheller, located in the Canyon of the Red Deer where there are the dolomites which have been photographed probably more than most other geological formations in the world.
The three areas, Lake Louise, the Banff townsite and Banff National Park, and the Drumheller areas, are tourist areas extraordinary and draw people from all over the world. The Drumheller valley contains the famous Badlands where the dinosaurs used to roam.


An hon. Member:: Still do.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They are not quite as fossilized as some of the members of the NDP.
The rock and soil formations attract geologists from all over the world and form the northeast part of the riding. The constituency completely encircles the city of Calgary. There are cattle, horse and sheep ranches, grain farms, poultry farms, oil wells and gas wells. There are scores of small businesses, and there are coal mines. Some businesses are large, some medium, and some small. Bow River is an agricultural, industrial and commercial centre in the thriving province of Alberta.
However, the best thing about the constituency is its wonderful people who come from all countries of the world. They have brought with them their cultures and are making their cultures part of the great Canadian mosaic. The cultures of our native people are found on the three reserves within the riding, the Blackfoot Reserve, the Stony Reserve, and the Sarcee Reserve. All together these people contribute to making Canada a better place in which to live.
On top of all that we have the town of High River, the birthplace of our innovative and energetic Prime Minister (Mr Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: His parents still live there, and they are wonderful people. Everyone in Bow River and, indeed, in Alberta, is proud of the fact that a native son has become the Prime Minister of this great country, and under his leadership our country will become united and strong. I am proud to have the opportunity to represent such wonderful people and such a wonderful constituency.
One of the thrilling paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne reads as follows:
My ministers were given a mandate to change the direction of the Government of Canada, as we enter the 1980s. The basic purposes of that change will be to enhance the rights, freedoms and opportunities of individual Canadians, and re-establish the spirit of partnership and renewal which are fundamental to our federation.
"To change the direction of the Government of Canada" that is the reason the Progressive Conservative Party is on this side of the House. Why did the people of this nation want a change of direction? Well, let us look at just a few items. For ten or more years free enterprise values which made Canada a healthy, inventive and prosperous country have been discredited. There has been a mulligan stew of collectivism and statism. Government ownership permeated legislation, and then the administration crippled free enterprise by regulating and controlling the economy. The government told the people what was good for them, leaning more and more to the left, and with the help of the NDP they tried to kill free enterprise altogether.


An hon. Member:: Now they are getting closer and closer.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, they are getting closer together every day. As a result, people became afraid to invest money in their own country and they invested elsewhere. More than $2 billion left Canada since 1974. Besides torturing the productive system of this country, they went on a wild spending spree spending money they did not have to the tune of billions of dollars. In 1973 Canada had a small surplus on current account in its international trade and payments account. By late 1974 and every year thereafter our current account deficit was around $4 billion or more. It was an extremely poor performance. The Canadian dollar declined from $1.03 in 1976 to about 83 cents in terms of the U.S. dollar, a fall of nearly 20 per cent by 1979. Depreciation of our

October 18, 1979

dollar against currency such as the Japanese yen, the West German mark and the Swiss franc was almost 40 per cent, but even this was not enough to make any substantial improvement in the trade balance.
To add to the dilemma, this resulted in almost one million people becoming unemployed, fewer goods were produced, the gross national product was below that of the United States, below that of Japan and below that of France. As a result inflation became rampant. The government of the day continued to spend more than it had, and the government deficit grew to as much as $13 billion. The deficit in the balance of payments grew to over $5 billion. But deficits had to be paid, and so the government went outside the country to borrow money, leaving a legacy of debt that generations yet unborn will have to pay because of this economic mess that was created.
No wonder the interest rate rose seven times in a few months during the last weeks of their administration, and now the Liberals have the audacity to ask why the interest rate is increasing. They know that the deficit must be covered by an equal amount of capital coming into the country. So long as this economic mess continues, it will be chaotic to have the flow of capital going out of Canada until we are at least able to get production up to a point where there will not be too many dollars chasing too few goods. Yes, the economic mess was created by the Liberals and we are still living with it. It cannot be cured over night. Instead of playing politics, I would think the Liberals today would assume responsibility for the mess in which they left this country, the mess that our present government is trying to clean up.
In 1968 the debt of this country was some $32 billion, and for this we paid annually more than $1 billion in interest. That was bad enough, but within the next ten years of the Liberal administration under its present leadership, the debt grew to $80 billion-more than double. The people of Canada were paying almost $7 billion in interest every year.
The former minister of agriculture said the other day that he left Canada in a good state. A good state? A messy state, if I know anything. In addition to that, there was a flight of more than $2 billion out of this country to build industry and to provide jobs in other countries, while our own people were unemployed. The gross national product was not growing. Trade deficits were continuing to grow larger each year. It is fortunate indeed that Canada has not gone into complete bankruptcy. As a matter of fact many people said to me, as I knocked on their doors in Bow River, "If that administration is returned, the whole country will be bankrupt." Look at the facts. They had something on which to base their fears. Does anyone believe that the direction should not be changed? Surely it does not take anyone with more than a grade three education to see that something had to be done to clean up this mess into which we were getting deeper and deeper.
Certainly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) cannot press a button and find that, presto, everything turns rosy. Remember that the country is close to a crisis financially and economically. Even though faced with
The Address-Mr. G. Taylor
this economic mess, the Progressive Conservative government is determined to turn the crisis into an opportunity to give free enterprise a chance to work, to create a climate where people will be glad to invest their money in their country, not send it elsewhere, and a chance to free our industries and our people from the regulatory bondage in which they have been placed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Wealth comes not from government offices or politicians' edicts but from that portion of the market place which is free. Collectivism, centralized planning, regulation after regulation, frustrate people to the point where they will not even bother investing their money. One man said to me, "It is so hard to invest $100,000 in this country. I am going down to Florida where I can invest the money and where people are glad to have the investment." That man can come back to Alberta and to Canada because there is not going to be this red tape that tries to keep people from investing in their own country.
The multinational companies have their place. They provide employment, and as good corporate citizens they should pay their share of running this country and give our workers a fair return for their labour. Along with the multinationals we need hundreds of thousands of individuals in partnerships, small businesses working for profit in a free market. What will the result be? The result will be interacting individual decisions with no conscious direction from the government, no single purpose for each goal. Each individual has his own purpose and goal and seeks to secure the greatest reward to avoid or to cut his losses or to make a contribution. There are literally thousands of purposes, millions of decisions and millions of adjustments every day as inventors, entrepreneurs, middle men, employers, workers, buyers and sellers pursue their own prospective interests for themselves and their families, the sum total of which builds a nation.
Our wonderful neighbours to the south built a nation on the principles of free enterprise and individual freedom. Today they could be energy sufficient had their administration in the last few years not shackled free enterprise. Exploration for coal, oil, uranium, natural gas, came almost to a standstill in that great nation to the south. The administration was tying it up with red tape. The administrations thought they could regulate and control and that free enterprise would still work. The Congress of the United States has been told repeatedly that there is no shortage of fuel as such but that it takes money to find it. Individuals and companies need motivation to invest their money, and a reasonable return is essential. There are vast deposits of coal, oil and gas today in the United States, and I say they would have been self-sufficient had they not allowed the left wing of their party to dictate their policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Similarly the Liberals emphasized the left wing of their party. I know there are some free enterprisers in the Liberal party and there are some also in the

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. G. Taylor
NDP. Why do they want to shackle free enterprise? Let them come over to this group which breeds free enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, we plan to change the direction in this country.
Now, let us look at another item, namely, tourism. I mention tourism because it can become a great industry in this country. This year, in calculating the amount of money spent by Canadians in other countries, compared to what those who came to Canada spent in Canada, we find a $2 billion deficit. Canada has all its wonders, majestic mountains in Banff and Jasper. There is the wonder of the world in Lake Louise, Eloodoos and dolomites near Drumheller in the badlands of the canyon of the Red Deer River, just to mention a few attractions in my own constituency and to say nothing about the wonders found in the maritimes, Ontario and Quebec. There are wonderful falls in the Northwest Territories. Canada has wonder after wonder, yet we have a $2 billion deficit. Did the former administration ever ask why? I am very happy that the new minister in this government responsible for tourism is taking a look at new directions. We want our people to travel across the country. We must make it attractive for them to do so, in order to keep our money in our country. But that is not the only point. We can do something else as well.
There is a tremendous market for international tourists who would like to come and enjoy the beautiful scenery and wonderful hospitality of Canada. Major tour wholesalers in the United States, Australia and the Pacific rim countries are sending hundreds of people who want to come to Canada to other places, because we have become so bound with red tape in parts of this country that we have not provided accommodation.
Plow would one like to go to the Banff National Park or Lake Louise and find when one got there that there was no place to sleep, and then have to drive 100 miles or more into British Columbia or back to Calgary to find a room? People who have had to do that say they will never come back. Private enterprise today can and would provide accommodation in Banff and Lake Louise, and protect the environment, if given an opportunity to do so. But because of the bureaucracy built up by the previous government, along with the rules and regulations, they cannot do it. They cannot build new motels. They cannot tear down old ones and build modern cabins. The bureaucracy in Parks Canada has become God. They know best what the people want.
A man wanted to start a medical practice in Lake Louise when the Liberals were in power, but they would not let him. People can get sick. In this case the doctor finally became frustrated and left. Bureaucracy has taken hold. The people in the offices think they know what is best. They will not even license a man who wants to work in that particular area. They say that there is some rule or regulation passed by the former

administration which makes it impossible for them to do it; they do not want to break the law.
We want more and more people to come and enjoy the beauty of our mountains, the beauty of the maritimes, the beauty of every province in the country, each one with its unique attractions. Let us encourage entrepreneurs to build accommodation and at the same time protect the environment in our national parks. We should encourage thousands of these internationals, people from other countries, to come and enjoy our scenery. Such a policy will bring in new dollars and help our balance of trade, as well as provide jobs for people. Also it will enable entrepreneurs to provide a different type of traffic which will help the environment. They could provide a bus which would take 60 people instead of 30 cars taking the same number of people, to beautiful Lake Louise. The same thing could apply to other parks across the country.
I speak about Banff National Park because that is part of my constituency. It illustrates what is going on in other parts of the country. There is no end to what can be done to change the direction and turn the travel deficit into a surplus. Capital is waiting to be used if we turn out the red light and turn on the green.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I want to say a word or two about agriculture. Certainly agriculture needed some changing, with all due respect to the former minister. To put it in a nutshell, we found a dismal record. There were 2,000 boxcars which were unserviced, 4,000 new hopper cars were required, and 5,000 boxcars needed refurbishing. There was loss of markets. There were approximately 16 ships waiting in Vancouver to be loaded. Western farmers were paying fines of up to $5,000 a day which came out of the pockets of the producers, because the ships had to sit and wait and wait. The nation had a 35-million bushel backlog in exports. It was an all-time high. Producers saw their markets disappearing and going to other countries. They wanted a change of direction. Already we can see the change of direction. There is a changed attitude toward hopper cars entirely. Also I hope we can give the producers of this country a fair return for their products. It has been too long. Every other industry receives its costs plus a reasonable profit. Farmers work for the good of the country. They are entitled to a fair return plus the cost of their labour and a reasonable profit. I hope to see a change in that area during the life of this Parliament.
I should like to deal with another area in which we want to change the direction, and that is the supplying of energy in the country by way of coal. For many years our coal mines remained virtually idle while we bought coal from other countries. Canada has a tremendous tonnage waiting to be mined, yet Canada is a net importer. Year after year the Alberta legislature passed resolutions urging the federal government to assist us in getting markets for our coal. But what happened? In the Drumheller Valley 20 mines disappeared. Only one mine remains. Their market has disappeared. At the same time Canada is bringing in millions of tons of coal from
October 18, 1979

another country. Our own miners are being dislocated and are required to find work after being in the pits and the bosom of the earth for 30, 40 or 50 years. The same thing happened in the province of Nova Scotia. Many of its miners came west and are still working in mines that are operating. But what about the thousands of people who could not find work?
In 1978 15 million tons of coal valued at $750 million were exported; 18.5 million tons valued at $200 million were used in Canada; and 15.5 million tons valued at $660 million were imported into Canada. That was in 1978 when our unemployment level was growing close to the million mark. I was raised in a coal mining community and worked in the mines. My father and my brothers were coal miners. I know what it means to be hungry when the mines had no work. I remember many times coming out of the mines and just yearning to see the light come on in the tipple indicating that there would be work the next day. Around the tables in the homes in the mining area of Newcastle people would say, "If we could only get just a little bit of that Ontario market". Think of the jobs this would have provided, think of the effect this would have had on our balance of trade, think what this would have done toward attaining energy efficiency and sufficiency.
The producers of coal in Canada are the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. There may be coal in other provinces as well. Now there are about ten mines operating in these five provinces, plus two dozen corporations, mostly oil and gas companies, which have sizeable coal rights and are planning to produce coal for conventional uses. Our coal mines should operate for additional domestic and foreign markets. In the province of Ontario we need more than the 3.7 million tons of thermal coal a year to which it is presently committed. I thank the Ontario government for at least giving us a bite of its market. With some help from the federal government, I am sure the people of Ontario will give us more business.
By 1980 the demand for domestic coal is expected to increase greatly. To enable coal to play a meaningful part in our energy requirements, as we work toward self-sufficiency, we need to do certain things. We need additional transportation and terminal capacities. We need to do something about transportation costs.
Research should also play a part as coal can be used in many ways. There are literally a thousand items that can be made from coal. There is a tremendous opportunity in the liquefaction of coal to produce a large range of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, and in the gasification of coal to produce low, medium and high Btu gases for combustion; process energy to congeneration of electricity, petrochemical feed stocks, and the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers. There is opportunity for the use of coal as an energy source to recover large amounts of synthetic, heavy oils and bitumens. I have said for years, and I said when 1 was part of the government of Alberta, that we should not be using our oil and our gas, particularly our gas, in our industries. Why do they not use
The Address-Mr. G. Taylor
coal and save the clean fuel for the heating of our homes? Gradually people are coming around to believing that that is right. There is a large range of uses for coal.
Again we should protect the environment, but let us not stop coal mining because a few extreme environmentalists say it is going to hurt the environment. Yes, we should change the direction and produce our own coal when we have such abundant supplies.
There is another item that has been mentioned to me many times as I knocked on doors in the Bow River constituency, and that is the direction in which we are going with the metric system. It was brought into this country in a questionable way by the Liberal administration. This is another example of the former government telling the people what was good for them without the people having an opportunity to have their day in court.
This government believes in reflecting the thinking of the people to the greatest possible degree. Because metric was brought in the way it was, because it is ahead of its time, because the United States is reluctant to go ahead with metric, and because the United States is our greatest trading partner especially in regard to agricultural products, let us keep our systems parallel. There will be utter confusion and loss of markets if we move to metric ahead of the U.S.A., particularly in agricultural matters.
Let us teach metric in our schools. Let us prepare for it rather than suddenly thrusting it on the people. I hope we can change the direction of the metric system by slowing it down to a stop. In that way there will be some freedom of choice in whether people use it or not.
One lion, member mentioned the case earlier today about a storekeeper in his riding for whom it was going to cost a large sum of money to change his scales. At least five of the storekeepers in the Bow Valley constituency told me during my recent mainstreeting in 42 centres that the change in their stores will bankrupt them. One said his scales alone would cost him $8,000, and another said it would cost him $2,000. He said he could not afford to pay $2,000 for scales just to weigh the few items that required weighing in his store. Let us give some thought to this thing and what it is doing to our country. We do not want to be an island when the world turns metric, but let us not penalize our people, hurt our markets, and destroy the faith of our people by pushing this on them before its time.
We hope to change the direction of legislation, not by bureaucracy or by cabinet orders, but by free debates in this House before passing any laws in respect of which the people should have some input, and before anything is thrust upon them. Some of the cardinal principles of the Progressive Conservative Party are freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom of enterprise.
I believe it was Woodrow Wilson who said:
Liberty has never come from the government. The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.
My own Prime Minister has said several times-
382

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Loiselle


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members. I will not abuse your kindness.
In September, 1978, British Prime Minister James Callaghan in a speech to the labour conference declared, and I plead with NDP members to listen carefully because I have heard some funny things coming from that corner this afternoon:
We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour, that that option no longer exists, that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked by injecting a big dose of inflation into the economy followed by a higher level of unemployment.
Instead of asking the government to roll back prices, which is going to throw people out of work, why do you not ask the government to roll back bureaucracy and, create jobs, as this will do some good for the country? Free enterprise can bring prosperity back to Canada, bring unemployment to a minimum, and increase our national product. We plan to unshackle free enterprise and give it a chance to work. It can work again and make this country once more one of the greatest in the world, prosperous, highly productive, with the retention of individual liberty, and that is important.
I close with a quotation from the Speech from the Throne:
My ministers were given a mandate to change the direction of the Government of Canada-
That is exactly what we are going to do.


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


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be speaking today early in this session of the Thirty-first Parliament. If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all our new colleagues sitting in the House of Commons for the first time and wish them well in the exercise of the heavy responsibilities they will have to discharge in the coming months.
Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the spokesman for my party on tourist matters, I would like first of all to give the House an analysis of the tourist situation in Canada and, second, elaborate briefly on the highlights of a new approach on the tourist issue.
The tourist industry ranks high in the economy of this country. I only have to quote a few figures: $10 billion in tourist revenues which represent 5 per cent of our gross national revenue, with the result that the tourist industry holds fifth place in the economy of this country. Tourism in this country creates 900,000 jobs, 500,000 of which are permanent. The needs for facilities and services created by tourism in Canada require public and private investments of SI.5 billion.

Tourist revenues at all levels of government exceed $4 billion. Also, every dollar spent in the tourist industry has a multiplier factor of $2.40. Finally, the private sector of the tourist industry is made up of 80,000 small competitive businesses, 2,000 travel agencies, 350 carriers and 43,000 restaurants, plus 15,000 hotels. The tourist industry is becoming increasingly important from our social point of view. The Canadian society is becoming increasingly involved in the leisure age, a good part of which is spent on travelling. According to Statistics Canada, the average spending on travelling, tourist activities and recreation accounts for 10 to 15 per cent of the family budget, which is more than substantial.
The tourist industry is also very important in terms of Canadian unity. Travelling Canadians can discover the various areas of this country, discuss with their fellow citizens and get acquainted with the different ethnic and cultural groups that make up the Canadian mosaic. In spite of the figures we just quoted, in spite of the fact, as the hon. member who spoke before me suggested, that the tourist industry is probably the one which is being left the most in the hands and only in the hands of private enterprise, it does not mean that everything is well in the industry. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the tourism industry in Canada is very sick and it is high time that we find a cure. Let me simply mention that the deficit which was $727 million in 1975 went up to $1.7 billion in 1978 and that, if this trend keeps up, it is estimated that the tourism deficit will reach $10 billion by 1985. This situation is unacceptable and we must react as swiftly as possible. One of the fundamental causes of our deficit is the fact that a large number of Canadians spend their vacation abroad and that we are unable to attract to this country an influx of foreign visitors. For instance, in 1977, 31.8 million Americans came to Canada while 39.4 million Canadians travelled abroad, including 37.9 million to the United States.
Yet, the population of Canada represents only 10 per cent of that of the United States. That same year, more than two million Canadians, of which 31 per cent came from Quebec, spent more than $1 billion in Florida. The devaluation of our dollar in 1978 did nothing to change the situation. Indeed, in spite of a devaluation of 15 per cent compared with American currency and 25 to 50 per cent compared with European currencies, we have kept the same record deficit as in 1977. Moreover, the number of Canadians willing in 1978 to pay 15 to 50 per cent more to travel abroad remained exactly the same as in 1977, which certainly did not help reduce our deficit.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that services in the tourist industry cost 20 per cent more in Canada than in the United States. Tourism in Canada is therefore a luxury that 80 per cent of the population cannot afford. The travel price index in Canada rose from 100 in 1971 to 160 in 1976 compared with an increase of 100 to 141 for the same period
October 18, 1979

in the United States. Even though our dollar was devalued by more than 15 per cent, it still cost less to travel to most places outside Canada. For instance, Mr. Speaker, the air fare of $160 from Montreal to Miami is less than the air fare of $192 plus the 8 per cent tax from Montreal to the Magdalen Islands. Yet, the distance is shorter by half. In this regard the government should consider seriously and in depth offering Canadians a greater choice of charter flights to allow lower costs and a greater number of trips within the country.
Let me now go on to another aspect of the tourist industry, namely, the role of travel agencies. We do not object either to the existence or the role of travel agencies since they have their place in tourist planning in Canada, but we would like to underline the matter of the free services offered by these agencies. Even though they claim that their services are free, it is certainly false since the 2,000 Canadian travel agents in 1977 raked in $2 billion of which only 20 per cent remained in Canada. The companies involved in tourism pay commissions of 7 to 15 per cent to travel agencies, 7 to 8 per cent on airplane tickets, 10 to 12 per cent on organized trips, 10 per cent on charter flights, 10 to 15 per cent on car rentals and 8 to 10 per cent on hotel costs.
Travellers cannot therefore save on those commissions by purchasing directly from companies. Those who drive their own cars and arrive directly at the hotel indirectly pay to hotelkeepers commissions to agents they did not use. That should be corrected. We would consider reducing those companies' rates by the amount paid as commissions to travel agencies, and force the latter to charge their commissions directly to their clients.
Quite apart from that, we regret that travel agencies do not advertise enough to convince people to travel in Canada. Go to any agency, you will find that more than 80 per cent of packages offered for sale have foreign destinations. We also feel on this side of the House that the issue of wages and salaries in the tourist industry is of the outmost importance. It is vital that a wage policy be developed as soon as possible for the tourist industry. Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to deal briefly with another aspect of a more geographic nature, namely, our climate. Many people argue that our Canadian climate and especially our Canadian winter is not good for tourism. We believe, Mr. Speaker, it is high time we take a more positive approach.
We are fortunate in having four seasons quite distinct, each with its charms and beauty. This is an asset of which we should take advantage of. To those who decry winter, I would say that it lends itself to a variety of inside and outside activities. We never exploited our winter season enough to promote tourism. I am sure that with well designed publicity campaigns we could attract large number of tourists from the warmer countries, to whom snow and winter are novelties. The same advertisements could also make Canadians aware of the beauties and opportunities of our Canadian winter.
The Address-Mr. Loiselle
Mr. Speaker, I have referred to advertising. Over the last few years, tourist publicity in every form has increased considerably. We should examine seriously the quality of that publicity. Obviously, our publicity does not really attempt to put the accent on the particular attractions of Canada. In fact, 80 to 90 per cent of the tourist publicity in Canadian mass media by airlines and travel agencies encourages Canadians to visit foreign countries and particularly the United States. It is true that it is much more profitable for a travel agency to sell a complete package to Miami than a return flight to Vancouver. We can realize the seriousness of the situation every day in our newspapers, periodicals and magazines.
The publicity budget of the Canadian Office of Tourism for 1979-80 is roughly $10 million. Of that amount, $5.9 million is for the United States, $2.6 million for the rest of the world and only $1.5 million for Canada. We complain about our deficit and the small number of Canadians who are visiting our country. It is not with only 15 per cent of our publicity budget spent in Canada that we shall convince Canadians to visit their own country. Mr. Speaker, we simply must increase the amounts spent on publicity in Canada. First we should promote tourism in our country rather than abroad.
The government expressed its concern about government spending. We suggest that it should study carefully the publicity budget of the Canadian Office of Tourism and particularly the $5.9 million spent for the United States to check if the return on those spendings justify the cost and, if not, to allocate those amounts to publicity in Canada.
To illustrate the seriousness of the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote some brief statistics concerning some periodicals, for instance Evasion. .This publication that calls itself the only great French monthly periodical about travel, holidays and recreation in Canada has been published since November, 1975. In 27 issues which appeared since that date until October, 1978, this periodical published articles about Canada in 12 editions, about Quebec in 19 and about Florida in 25. Those figures do not need any comment and are unacceptable. Furthermore, Canada is certainly one of the countries which publish the largest number of tourist information. But that avalanche of publications with a profusion of superlatives does not allow a foreigner any more than a Canadian to prepare his travel in advance. Often it does not even encourage him to do it. Canada is very little known as our pamphlets and folders are like very short range rifles, they do not cross the Canadian borders or even the provincial borders.
Still, Canada does offer many tourist attractions capable of motivating a transatlantic trip, but they are not always publicized adequately, in that those which we praise most here are not necessarily those that are the most eagerly sought after by people outside North America. Our tourist concepts do not necessarily correspond with the tastes of the Spanish or the Germans. The European, for instance, generally attaches much greater importance to history, art and folklore. Nature

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Loiselle
pleases him more than do the great American tourist attractions. Old Montreal and Mount Royal would therefore be far more appreciated than the buildings of Place Ville-Marie.
Mr. Speaker, I am not exaggerating when I say that here, in Canada, there is no truly organized tourist industry. For years now, governments, federal and provincial, private enterprise, have been going ahead with their promotions, according to their own whims and small concerns. There is no real tourist policy in Canada. There is a free-for-all. Mr. Speaker, that situation cannot last any longer. We must plan, even now, our tourist development for the 1980s. That is a priority we must set for ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to elaborate on a few suggestions 1 discussed with a citizen whom I have learned to admire greatly because of his thorough knowledge of tourism. 1 am speaking here of a citizen who really thinks in terms of the interest of his country, namely, Mr. Jean-Marie Guay of Gatineau. I was also deeply interested in the proposal of the Minister of Tourism with regard to developing an over-all strategy for tourism in Canada. Mr. Speaker, we too feel that our tourist deficit is of prime concern. In that regard, with the co-operation of Mr. Guay, I looked into certain measures designed to reduce our deficit, and as an example we took the case of Quebec.
Statistics indicate that 52 per cent of Quebeckers do not travel. If half of these 52 per cent of Quebeckers had spent $180 travelling in 1976, that is the average spent by those Quebeckers who do travel, this average of $365, Quebec's $200 million deficit would have been replaced by a $50 million surplus. If the duration of the trips made by Quebeckers in Quebec had been extended by 10 per cent, $70 million could have been recovered from the 1976 deficit. If the number of Quebeckers travelling outside Quebec had been reduced from 24 to 20 per cent, and if these Quebeckers had spent in Quebec half of the average of $365, the deficit could have been reduced by $45 million. A 30 per cent increase in non-American foreign tourists would have brought in an additional $30 million. A 15 per cent increase in Canadian tourists from other provinces would have brought in $15 million in additional revenues. A 10 per cent increase in American tourists would bring $15 million more.
Mr. Speaker, these measures could be applied to Canada as a whole without much difficulty. Contrary to what occurs in other areas, there is probably in Canada and elsewhere in the world no organization, eitheir public or private, which is involved in serious research in tourist leisure and the implementation of its findings. Many people have some experience in the tourism industry, but as far as I know there is no real graduate in that field. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it seems important to me to consider the creation of an independent tourism research and development institute. This institute

would be financed by both public funds and private funds coming from associations involved in tourist matters. Once set up, the institute would, as a first step, evaluate the Canadian tourist product as well as current and potential, customers for that product.
The Canadian tourist product is more than just natural beauties or historic sites. A full evaluation of the tourist product would also look at the whole service sector-the carriers, hotels, restaurants and tourist circuits. That step seems to me of prime importance. How could one expect, Mr. Speaker, to develop any tourist strategy if one has not beforehand made an inventory of what are the country's tourist attractions, development potential, and customers to develop it?
The institute being an independent agency, its evaluation of the product would be most objective since it would not have to yield to parochial interests. So the end result of this evaluation would take into account only those tourist attractions and services which are most worth while and eliminate a great many others which have very little interest.
There is no intention on my part to favour one region at the expense of another but one must understand that not everything is worth seeing in Canada and that we must first develop what is most profitable. The evaluation of our tourist product would enable us to establish uniform classification criteria for the services available. For instance, the traveller would know that a three-maple-leaf hotel or restaurant has the same meaning in Vancouver as it does in St. John's, Newfoundland, which would quite often spare him very unpleasant surprises and would largely contribute to the elimination of a great many exploiters who make a living out of the false representation of the services rendered.
The identification of the clientele would allow for better planning of our tourist development in accordance with the varying tastes of travellers. It is as important to provide the culture minded type of visitor with a product that will capture his interest as it is in the case of the sports fan or the travelling gourmet. The proposed institute could play a leading role in the preparation of training programs for tourist agents who, once defined, could become precious instruments for the provincial departments of education. The institute could also raise the interest of young people for tourism. Students and youngsters are the future of our country. The institute could develop certain instruments such as, for instance, tourist educational games which could be integrated as complements to the social sciences courses provided in the schools. The institute could also carry out marketing studies in the field of tourism and try to improve on the Canadian product.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that this institute should have an independent status. This must not be construed as a refusal to co-operate with the various levels of government and private enterprise engaged in the development of tourism. The institute could also make governments and the private sector
October 18, 1979	________COMMONS
involved in tourism benefit from the results of its research by recommending initiatives to be taken in the area of tourist infrastructure and the development of their tourist strategy. The creation of a tourist research and development institute would not have to compete with government and private agents already working in this area. It would be an additional tool to promote tourism in Canada.
We also consider, Mr. Speaker, that the work already being done by the various levels of government must continue. We recognize that the federal government has a major role to play in the promotion of tourism in Canada. It should be involved in the establishment of tourism development policies, in publicity and also in the area of tax incentives provided to private business in the tourism sector. We urge the government to inform us as soon as possible of its response to the Powell report recommendations concerning taxation in the tourist sector.
We must also reconsider the approach and the objectives of the federal government when negotiating federal-provincial agreements concerning the tourist industry, to avoid certain waste of public money, and, to be very clear, to avoid repeating the exercise experienced in Quebec where we have spent over $75 million sprinkling grants all across the province instead of developing one, two or three regions, instead of concentrating our efforts in these regions to attract specific customers.
We must also-and a Progressive Conservative government,
1 hope, should convince banks-facilitate the access of the private sector to risk capital, because the tourist industry needs large investments which are practically unobtainable because of the unreliability of this supply in public funds.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we will have to review the functions of national parks within a global tourist strategy in Canada. Allow me now to sum up our position. As I have said, our tourist industry is in bad shape and we will have to find a remedy as soon as possible. We believe that the Canadian tourist industry must be included in a large industrial strategy so that it could enjoy the same advantages that other industries already have.
We think that the development of a national tourist strategy must be made in direct consultation with all levels of government and private entreprises operating in that field. In this regard, we hope that the next federal-provincial conference of tourism ministers which will take place later this month will result in better planning and co-ordination of policies and investment.
We also believe that the creation of a tourism research and development institute is a very important move for the development of tourism in Canada. Mr. Speaker, tourism and its development are important resources for all Canadians. The time has come now to develop those resources not only for us but specially for future generations.

The Address-Mr. Gass


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: 1 wish to begin by adding my sincere congratulations to the many already expressed to you, Mr. Speaker and to the Deputy Speaker on your reappointments. May you continue to preside over the affairs of the House in the same efficient and non-partisan manner, and with the same degree of fairness you demonstrated in the previous Parliament.
Before going any further I would like to comment on the speech made by the hon. member on the other side. I am glad to know the party opposite is finally showing interest in tourism, which is something it neglected to do over the last 11 years. We support most of what the hon. gentleman has just said.
As well, I congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald). I should especially like to express my delight with the speech given by my friend and fellow islander, the hon. member for Cardigan, as his rural constituency is not unlike the one which I have been chosen to represent. I am indeed honoured to be here in the House of Commons delivering my maiden speech. I hope I can serve the constituents of Malpeque as well as they were served for 25 years by my PC predecessor and now premier of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Angus MacLean.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Melbourne Alexander Gass: May I also express my gratitude to the good people of Malpeque for placing me here and assure my constituents that it is my intention to serve them to the best of my ability, whether 1 am here in Ottawa or at home in my riding.
It could be said that the constituency of Malpeque which I represent is the incarnation of what everyone who is not an islander believes Prince Edward Island to be. The Micmac Indians knew Prince Edward Island as Abegweit, meaning cradled on the waves, and the island has often been referred to as the million acre farm, or Canada's garden province.
We in Malpeque are blessed with fertile rolling farmland, bountiful waters, and beautiful sandy beaches. Thus agriculture, fisheries, and tourism are the three major industries that keep the majority of the people of Malpeque happy, healthy, and employed. The three industries are like a three-legged stool, each leg or industry supporting and complementing the other two.
Every year the land produces an abundance of potatoes, a quality potato which is shipped throughout the world and for which Prince Edward Island has become famous. But we do not grow only potatoes. The spud may be king, but there are other crops and produce such as grain, dairy cattle, beef cattle, and hogs, that are of significant importance to the Malpeque farmers. Prince Edward Island in known as the Kentucky of Canada because of the quality harness racing and the stand-ardbred horses that are raised on the island. However, no

October 18, 1979
The Address-Mr. Gass
matter what the product, we on Prince Edward Island are proud of what we produce, and equally proud of the hard working people who produce it.
Much of the same thing could be said of the fisheries industry in Malpeque as has been said of the agricultural industry. Malpeque is well known for its lobster and its lobster suppers, its oysters, and for its giant biue fin tuna.


Some hon. Members:: M-m-m-m-m-m-m!


Melbourne Alexander Gass: During the often too short fishing seasons, men and women work long and hard to bring in the products of the sea for which Prince Edward Island is famous. It was especially encouraging for me to see that the future development of our fisheries resources was considered in the Speech from the Throne. Such development is necessary if those who live off the sea are to continue to live as they have, and to further improve their lot. Canada needs its fisheries industry, and only through expansion and improvement of the industry will our country be able to maintain its position as one of the major fishing and fish exporting nations of the world.
I have already had occasion to mention how proud we are in Prince Edward Island of our products which possess such high quality. This quality has been the result of a collective effort on the part of the people, the result of good, honest, hard work. For the people who live from the land and the sea, work is not a four-letter word. They are proud of what they do and proud of the effort they put into doing it. I am sorry to say that the general attitude toward work has changed over the past half century as science and technology became more advanced. At one time work was a source of pride and joy for all men and women. It is our duty not only to stimulate the economy by providing more jobs, but we must also seek the means to create a greater desire in the populace to be employed.
Work is not a burden to be endured or avoided but should be looked on as a source of pride, a sense of accomplishment and achievement for a job well done. As a member of the PC caucus committee on tourism, one of the highlights of the Speech from the Throne for me was the fact that mention was made of the tourism industry, and I quote: "In co-operation with the provinces and industry, a national tourism strategy will be developed."
In Prince Edward Island tourism, along with agriculture and fisheries, is one of the three major industries and sources of revenue and one of the fastest growing industries on the island. As I have already had occasion to note, we in the constituency of Malpeque are blessed with beautiful, sandy beaches. Malpeque is the home of Prince Edward Island's only national park, which stretches for approximately 21 miles along the island's north shore and which is perhaps Prince Edward Island's most famous landmark and tourist haven. My riding is also recognized worldwide as the home of Anne of Green Gables, the fictitious little island girl made famous by island born authoress, Lucy Maude Montgomery. Lucy Maude, well known for her "Anne" stories, has also immortalized the beauty of and her love for the island, in her poetry. "The Island Hymn," written by Miss Montgomery, expresses her

feelings as well as those of many islanders. With Your Honour's permission, I will quote it:
Fair island of the sea,
We raise our song to thee,
The bright and blest;
Loyally now we stand As brothers, hand in hand,
And sing God save the land We love the best.
Upon our princely isle May kindest fortune smile In coming years;
Peace and prosperity In all her borders be.
From every evil free, and weakling fears.
Prince Edward Isle, to thee Our hearts shall faithful be.
Where'er we dwell;
Forever may we stand As brothers, hand in hand,
And sing God save the land We love so well.
People who "come in from away" to Prince Edward Island are not disappointed, for islanders put their heart and soul into making their province a place where visitors can relax and enjoy themselves, and learn what good, simple living is all about. During the summer months our tourism industry not only employs thousands of our students, but provides an income for many families, one which they live on year round. Thus tourism is of the utmost importance to Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, and Canada as a whole.
The fact is that tourism in Canada is an $11 billion business accounting for 5 per cent of the gross national product, and employing one person in every ten. Eighty per cent of the tourist businesses are classified as small business. For too many years this important sector of the economy was virtually overlooked by previous administrations, and this must be changed. The government must also endeavour to develop a program of awareness for the public of Canada. Canadians all across the country should be made aware of the importance of the tourist industry to the economy and to the country. If tourism is to succeed and flourish as a major industry in Canada, it is of the greatest importance that the Canadian people understand its great and valued impact on the country.
Transportation is another major concern of mine, Mr. Speaker, for in order to serve our basic industries in Prince Edward Island we need adequate transportation systems; better ferries, better roads, and improved rail and air services to and on the island. In order for our agriculture and fisheries industries to remain viable, an upgrading of the systems that transport their products to markets must take place. Such upgrading in reference to Prince Edward Island would include better roads, better port facilities, and improved ferry and rail service, and an overhaul of air service. The tourism industry also depends heavily on how efficiently the transportation
October 18, 1979

system to and on Prince Edward Island is operating. We are, however, in the process of acquiring new airport facilities, a step in the right direction, I might add. What improvements that are being made to our transportation systems to and on Prince Edward Island are slow in coming, and few and far between. 1 hope that in the near future attention will be given to this matter of such great importance to Prince Edward Island and its industries.
As a member concerned about the plight of the farmer, the fisherman, and the small businessman of my constituency, it upsets me to see interest rates continuously increasing. Such increases are a disincentive to the expansion of small business and industry and one must sympathize with a person who is already in business and who has a loan with a floating interest rate-always up, it seems. This government will have to do everything within its power to bring interest rates down to a reasonable level.
I have spent the last few moments speaking of matters and issues which are of major concern to Malpeque and Prince Edward Island. Now I would like to continue for just a few moments addressing you on a subject which has always been and always will be of the utmost importance to me, that is, the role of the youth in Malpeque, in Prince Edward Island, and in Canada. The youth of this country are of special interest to me. 1 have a very deep and abiding concern for our young people. They have so much to contribute; it is a shame to see a great deal of this energy and potential going to waste. What do you tell a youngster about the kind of job he can expect to have when he leaves school, Mr. Speaker? It saddens me to see the disillusionment of our young people because they are not able to find meaningful work.
Bitterness and frustration are evident among many of our young Canadians who finish school and are unable to find jobs. We spend millions of dollars educating our youth and the only opportunity many of them get to utilize their skills is in completing UIC forms. It is time we re-arranged our priorities. We must start spending more assisting private enterprise and small business, thus creating an environment where more jobs are available.
It pleased me to see that the Speech from the Throne proposed the passing of legislation which would encourage small business and private enterprise, as well as the creation of a youth employment secretariat. It is important that the youth of Canada have faith in the political and parliamentary process of our country. It is important we continue to endeavour to provide a favourable climate in which our youth can live and work, for only then will we be able to keep our young people at home, only then will we be able to participate in the continuing development of Canada. In the past, Prince Edward Island has had problems keeping its youth at home after they finish their formal schooling. In the words of the Speech from the Throne we need to assist all individual Canadians, but especially our youth, in "building a stake in our country .
The Address-Mr. Gass
I should like to make mention of an issue which concerns the whole of the Canadian populace, in particular the youth. Because of my long involvement with young people and my deep and abiding concern for their welfare, I feel it is incumbent on governments, both federal and provincial, to establish an educational program advising Canadians on the more recent information about marijuana and other drugs and their adverse effects. I feel the lack of education is the crux of the whole drug problem, and that such an educational program, once established, will go a long way in helping our young people to understand the problems that can arise from the adverse usage of drugs.
I should like to go on for just a moment to deal with another matter which, in an indirect fashion, concerns young Canadians. If we are to expect our youth to have faith in our country's political and parliamentary process, if we are to expect our young people to have respect for those in positions such as we hold as members of Parliament, we are, first of all, going to have to show a little more respect for each other as we sit here in the House of Commons debating and making decisions on matters that concern our country.
It appalls me, Mr. Speaker, to witness the lack of respect that is present as individual members address the House. It may be difficult for some members to refrain from showing ignorance and lack of manners, but I do wish they would begin to show some politeness. Now that these sessions are being broadcast across the country for all to see, Canadians are able to view what they could only read about before-the thumping and pounding, the catcalls and the rude remarks. Is this how we endeavour to see that our youth respect the institutions we represent? As this first session of the Thirty-first Parliament continues I sincerely hope many of you will take a good, long look at yourselves and your actions here in the House, not only for the sake of the youth in the country but for your own sakes as well.
As many before me have stated, ours is a new Parliament facing an enormous challenge. Let us endeavour to live up to the expectations that Canadians have for us. And, Mr. Speaker, may we not disappoint them.


Mr. Yanakis:: Mr. Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House as I have only three or four minutes left. Could I call it ten o'clock and make my speech tomorrow afternoon?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House agrees.
[English\
Does the House agree to my calling it ten o'clock? The hon. member will begin his speech tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 18, 1979
Adjournment Debate



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

Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the subject, 1 should like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. As a neighbour in the constituency of Chateauguay, 1 can tell you that it is an honour for the whole area of the valley of Chateauguay.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, 1 alleged in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) that the effect of recent instructions issued by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp), specifically the removal of the commissioner of the executive committee in the Yukon, is to grant de facto provincial status to that territory without the consent either of Parliament or of the Yukon electorate, not to mention the other provinces in confederation. Surely this contention is not in any doubt.
1 quote from the letter of instruction which was issued to the commissioner by the minister, which led to her resignation: the commissioner was instructed to request the territorial government leader that he constitute and appoint a body known as the cabinet to replace the executive committee. She was then told in that same letter, "You will not be a member of the cabinet or of the executive committee and will not participate on a day to day basis in the affairs of the cabinet." Then, to make the meaning absolutely clear, the commissioner was informed that she had to remove herself physically from the legislative building. If there is any doubt anywhere that the intention of the minister was to create de facto provincehood by his instruction I need only refer to the authorization contained in the minister's press release-I presume it was also included in the letter-to the effect that the chairman of the executive council could call himself premier.
When I asked the Prime Minister the question last week he replied that he was surprised that the spokesman for our party was not enthusiastic about an extension of democracy in our country. Let us just consider the question of responsible government. Does the Yukon have it now? What measure of responsible government does it have? Until this last event the commissioner had been instructed by the previous government, to accept the advice of the majority leader as to the number of members ol the executive, and following the last territorial election the commissioner was also instructed to accept the advice of the majority leader on the appointment of elected members to the executive committee. In addition, this executive committee had control over matters of local importance

and matters of concern to provincial governments such as health, roads, education, and the administration of justice.
These matters were all being looked after by this executive committee long before this recent initiative of the minister. Although he may have obtained some advice from his advisers, and they in turn may have received some advice from the Department of Justice, I certainly have very serious doubts as to the legality of at least part of what the minister has initiated in this instance.
The commissioner resigned. The commissioner did not resign in a tiff. She was not a bureaucrat who was insulted by these actions of the minister. If any white has a right to call herself a native Yukoner, she has. Her roots go back two or three generations in the Yukon. Without question she was and is one of the most esteemed personages in the north.
At the time of her selection last January she was the unanimous choice of all Yukoners. Suddenly in October she had to resign, and she resigned because she felt it her duty to resign, presumably in the interests of the Yukon and Yukoners.
It seems to me that the minister has placed himself in an unfortunate situation. 1 was happy to see him elevated to minister. I felt he was sympathetic toward native people. I felt he was open and frank and would be an excellent minister. He has been, to use the phrase of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander), bamboozled here by his colleague from Yukon, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Nielsen), who is a very astute individual and who realized perhaps-this may be one of the reasons, at least-that the Drury report will be forthcoming within the next few weeks. Certainly if any of Mr. Drury's statements so far find their way into his report, we can expect some recommendations about local government in the Northwest Territories.
The report does not address itself to the Yukon, but presumably there is some fear in some quarters that there may be some interesting stuff in that Drury report, and people of the Yukon may perhaps be interested in making use of some of that material. Those who are not interested in seeing that happen want, in effect, to pre-empt that danger. In fact by pre-empting that danger they are pre-judging the referendum the Yukon has been promised on the whole question of provincial status. They are pre-judging the electorate and, in effect, pre-empting their right to decide in one way or another.
.. T,he referendum will have to deal not just with a "yes" and a "no" question, but it appears it will not even reach that point if the minister, taking advice from his colleague in the cabinet, the Minister of Public Works, has his way. The die will have been cast, and that is what has happened in this situation. We now have de facto provincial status in the Yukon without reference to Parliament, without reference to the electorate of the Yukon, and without reference, as the Prime Minister has promised, to the premiers of the provinces.
There are a number of questions we can ask. The financial implications for Yukoners themselves are serious. The Yukon
October 18, 1979

is presently receiving from the federal government about $23 million a year for operating expenses, another $15 million for capital expenses, plus the $13 million or so which is being raised by its taxpayers and which, presumably, in the next year or so will be the subject of an income tax system within the Yukon itself.
I would like to terminate by requesting the minister to reconsider his position to allow, first, a consideration of this change by a parliamentary committee and, second, to reconsider the change in the commissioner's role. It is certainly not a change which is in the interest of the people of the Yukon or of the people of Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I know he is sincere about his views, but I must say to him that my views are diametrically opposed to his, which have been stated by the former government, that colonial status must remain north of 60. That is a position that this government does not accept.
The point should be mentioned also that he talks about the fact of provincial status. I do not know what the fact of provincial status is because we have never had that in our Canadian experience, but I want to say to him, first, that the Yukon does not have control over land; second, it does not have control over resources; third, it does not have control over fiscal responsibility. In fact I said in the letter of instructions to the former commissioner that the budget was to be looked at by the elected people and only then submitted to her and passed on to Ottawa. So when the hon. member speaks about provincial status, whatever definition he might have, it does not square with the facts.
What the government has done through the letter of instructions to the commissioner of the Yukon has been to provide the Yukon with responsible government as far as the Yukon Act allows. The Yukon Act provides that the commissioner receive instructions from time to time from the minister with respect to the ways in which the government of the day wishes the commissioner to carry out his or her duties. In fact the former minister said very similar things, and I quote from his letter of instructions. It reads;
In response to territorial requests for further transfers of delegation of responsibilities to the Yukon, the federal government wishes to be as forthcoming and as flexible as possible. Our aim is to achieve full, responsible government in the Yukon while ensuring that the interest and participation of the Yukon Indians are fully guaranteed.
They are almost exactly the same words as I used in my own letter, which reads:
It is clear to me that prior to the introduction of legislative changes in the Yukon Act it will be necessary for me to ensure that measures are developed which will protect the interests of native people in the Yukon and ensure their full and effective participation in government.
On the matter of consultation, I was in the Yukon, I met with the Yukon territorial government and I met with the Council of Yukon Indians while I was there. In fact on Friday,
Adjournment Debate
the weekend before the letter was sent, I telephoned Mr. Harry Allen indicating the letter of instructions.
I want to tell the hon. member that meetings have been established on the consultative process, as I have indicated earlier. I will be meeting with the Council of Yukon Indians next week on Tuesday; I will be meeting with the government of the Yukon Territory on Tuesday of next week, with a view to having the first tripartite meeting of the three groups next Thursday. I want to indicate to the hon. member that full consultation is in place. What the government has done-


Ian Watson: After the fact.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not after the fact, before the fact. If you think a Friday comes prior to a Monday, that is your choice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The letter of instructions was made. That is number one. Second, we have said that on constitutional development consultations will take place, and tripartite meetings as I said before, have been going forward. Third, only after that will amendments be made to the Yukon Act with regard to responsible government. Fourth, when experience of responsible government is in place and the full financial implications of provincial status, the pros and cons, have been studied, with full disclosure of those facts, only then will a referendum be held on provincial status within the first four years of the mandate of this government. That is the clear plan. It is well in place. There is only one difference between the former government and ours, and that is that we believe that the people of northern Canada should enjoy the same democratic rights as we enjoy in the south. The period of colonialism is over.


ENERGY-PURCHASE OF OIL FROM MEXICO
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to join with my colleague in congratulating Your Honour on your elevation to the role of Deputy Speaker. I know the very fine job Your Honour has done in the past. I am pleased that the House is in such good hands.
On Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) a question about a Mexican oil trade deal that we were in the process of negotiating before we slipped from power.


Mr. Kempling:: You mean fell.


Paul Edmund McRae: Only slipped slightly. In January our minister met with his counterpart in Mexico, along with officials from Petro-Canada and Pemex, and eventually met with the President of Mexico, Senor Fopez Portillo. They agreed to a long term, ten-year oil deal involving something in the order of $5 billion to $6 billion worth of Mexican oil for Canadian goods and services in roughly the same amount. This deal was then put on paper and initialed by our minister and the Mexican ambassador on May 4 or 5, with the expectation that the President of Mexico would come to Canada in September and
390

October 18, 1979
Adjournment Debate
that there would be a proper signing of this document. After that there would be some negotiations between Petro-Canada and Pemex to bring the deal into fruition. It was hoped that by this winter we would have 10,000 barrels of oil a day coming to the east coast from Mexico.
I asked the Prime Minister why the visit of the President of Mexico had been postponed, whether indeed it had been postponed, or whether indeed the deal actually had fallen through. The Prime Minister assured me that the trip had to be postponed, but he said nothing about whether the deal had or had nor fallen through. He indicated that the Mexican president would visit Canada in May of 1980. There is no question that there has been a postponement, otherwise some kind of an arrangement could have been made for an earlier signature. I am not sure a signature is possible come next spring.
I should like to question what probably has gone wrong. I think there has been a lack of understanding on the part of this government of the history of Mexico, how Mexicans feel about oil, who produces and sells their oil and to whom they sell. We must not forget that the Mexicans went through a revolution in early 1920s to shake off American oil interests. It was made plain to all and sundry that the Mexicans did not want to deal with the multinationals, the Seven Sisters. They wanted to deal state to state. I think there is also a parallel with Venezuela where the Venezuelans decided not to go through with the deal involving 100,000 barrels per day to Petro-Canada through their oil company PetroVen, because during the election there were expectations that the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) might become Prime Minister and that his government would break up PetroCan and the deal would not go through. I think most of these countries are very wary of dealing with a government which does not put any faith in a national oil company.
There is another problem which I think may have occurred, and that is the problem of dealing with the government of Japan and the Japanese petroleum exploration company that also made some overtures to Mexico. It looks to me like they have outsmarted us. I cannot prove at this particular point that we have lost $5 billion or $6 billion worth of business, but I am certain there has been a postponement. There may be a shortfall this winter and we will need additional amounts.
I am very concerned that this government does not believe it wise to keep the national oil company in there in order that it may make this kind of deal. I am concerned that the government does not feel the national oil company should be made stronger and stronger for this purpose. I am afraid that the Mexicans and Venezuelans will look very askance at the kind of establishment we are going to set up after we give away the assets. I think they will have some doubts about this agency that is to be created with a lot of debts and not too much expertise, the best parts having gone. If this happens, I believe we will actually lose this deal which could mean 100,000

man-years of work for Canadians if the trade aspects are followed through.


Mr. Bob Jarvis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question put and the statements made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae), may I first point out that I had always understood, certainly when I went to school, that the revolution in Mexico in the 1920s, which included some of the activities of Pancho Villa, was a fight over the question of poverty and the oppression of the people by a dictatorship. I did not realize that they were fighting oil companies at that time. If my friend's speculations are as sound as his history, then there is very little to be said in respect of his speculations.
I would, however, respectfully point out to the hon. member that an Energy Co-operation Agreement was initialled by the Canadian and Mexican governments on May 4, 1979. Article
11	of the agreement looks forward to a minimum delivery of 10,000 barrels a day of crude oil commencing in 1979 or 1980. Those were the terms of that original memorandum of agreement. Deliveries of larger volumes will follow over the ensuing
12	months.
A separate Industrial Co-operation Agreement was initialled at the same time, and there is no barter connection between the supply of Mexican oil as referred to in the Energy Co-operation Agreement or in the memorandun or the Industrial Co-operation Agreement which was signed at the same time.
At the same time as the Energy Co-operation Agreement was being negotiated, discussions were taking place with Mexican officials about the details of future supply of oil to Canada. A commitment was received from Pemex, the Mexican national oil company, for deliveries of small quantities to begin in the second half of 1980 to the extent that production will permit once their existing commitments are met. That does not include any commitment to the Japanese, so there is no foundation to the speculation the hon. member posed in that regard. Deliveries to Canada are to be increased beyond that level in accordance with the availability of their supplies.
Contacts have been maintained with the Mexican government and with Pemex since the agreement was initialled. A Canadian delegation headed by the assistant deputy minister for energy visited Mexico City in September. It discussed Mexican production forecasts for 1980, which will determine the date when supplies will commence. A second visit is to be made in December at the Mexicans' suggestion, when further information as to future deliveries will be made available. That hardly suggests that the deal is at an end or is not going forward, particularly when at the Mexican suggestion we are attending that meeting to fix the times when deliveries commence. I trust that satisfies the questions and statements put by the hon. member.
October 18, 1979


ENERGY-SUPPLY OF GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL THIS WINTER
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I raised with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) the problem of the supply of fuel, oil and gasoline being down in Ontario. Indeed, we have learned that the reserves of home heating oil are down over 18 per cent from the same period last year, and gasoline supply by some 20 per cent. If members will recall, last year in Ontario the supply situation was very tight. Indeed, we have learned that British Petroleum has been closing its gas stations on Sundays and that Shell has been reducing the hours of operation of its gas stations as well, all of which, of course, indicates that there is a serious supply problem facing us in the months ahead.
What is more worrisome is that the oil companies in many cases have not bid on traditional fuel oil contracts for large users such as school boards. Indeed, in the area from which I come, and in nearby Algoma, a number of school boards have not been receiving the traditional bids from the oil companies to supply them with fuel, nor have they been offering the traditional discounts to large users. When I raised this matter in the House on Monday, I pointed out to the minister that we have a very fragile situation. In fact, those were the words he used. I wanted from him some kind of assurance that we would be able to make it through the winter without any problems.
I am still not satisfied that we will be able to do so. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) has admitted that he is powerless to do anything with the oil companies which are refusing to make their normal bids. I think that that is a sad statement, considering the power which the federal government has at its disposal. It really puts us again at the mercy of the private oil companies, the majority of which are foreign-controlled, at a time when we are about to, if we believe this government, disband Petro-Canada.
It seems to me that the situation will only get worse. The other thing that I pointed out to the minister is that the department of consumer affairs for the past six years has been investigating these oil companies on suspicion that they have been manipulating supply and price. I understand that the department will soon bring forward a report and that there is a likelihood that criminal charges will be laid. All of this makes me very suspicious about why we are facing shortages this winter, or potential shortages.
The oil companies tell us that there have been refinery breakdowns and this accounts for the lower supplies. We also know that gasoline demand was up over the summer and that many of the refineries were not producing home heating oil but converting to gasoline production instead. But the mere fact that we have this ongoing investigation into the supply practices in the oil companies makes me wonder if those are the real reasons, and to that end I asked the minister in the House whether or not he would make public the reports of the National Energy Board as to the supply situation because we,
Adjournment Debate
as members of Parliament, and the public generally, do not have access to these reports.
I think it is important that we be able to determine to our own satisfaction what the reasons for this downturn in supplies are. The minister, I think, misunderstood me when I asked that question because he thought I was referring to the investigation by the combines branch of the consumer affairs department. What I wanted to know was whether or not he would make those National Energy Board fuel reports public.
The other point was that the minister, by agreeing that the supply situation was very fragile, made me worry in the sense that all he was saying was that they were monitoring the situation and he was hopeful that we would make it through the winter without any problem. I categorize that statement as a rather bland assurance to the consumers in Ontario. What I wanted to know from the minister was what kind of contingency plans the government has in place in the sad event that we do come up with shortages over the cold months.
Members know that in the spring, before the election, we passed the Energy Supplies Emergency Act which the Conservatives opposed, unfortunately. It gives the federal government some rather sweeping powers to allocate supply to regions that experience shortages and, if it needs to, to implement rationing.
From statements made by the minister in this House and the fact that members of the energy supply allocation board have not yet been appointed, I do not think the government has any contingency plans in place to enable it to react quickly to a shortage if it occurs. The second question I would like answered tonight is this: does the government have any plans in place to meet a fuel oil shortage so that consumers, especially in the more remote parts of the province, will not experience shortages and cold homes over the winter months?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question put by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), may I say that all of us on the government side join with him in expressing concern over a growing world problem, namely, the limited supply of a non-renewable resource which the world as a whole is using beyond its capacity, and beyond reasonable expectations for that resource to last.
One of the prime objectives of this government will be to urge and to lead all Canadians to conserve this limited resource, and to use the resource in a more meaningful and proper manner.
With respect to the questions put, I would advise the hon. member that the government has undertaken several measures to ensure adequate supplies of gasoline and heating oil for this winter. First, they include curtailing crude oil exports to keep pipeline-fed Canadian refineries fully supplied-and I am sure that the hon. member is aware of the dramatic cutbacks in the export of crude oil; second, facilitating the exchange of western Canadian oil for additional eastern seaboard imports,

October 18, 1979
Adjournment Debate
which will increase supply in an area dependent upon oil for much of its energy.
The oil industry is programming a very high rate of delivery of refinery raw material from domestic and overseas sources in the fourth quarter and a commensurately large product market. If these programs can be achieved, then inventories of middle distillates for diesel and heating oil should be close to desirable levels by the year end.
A national outlook for the first quarter of 1980 is that programmed supply should be adequate to meet forecasted product demands, given normal weather conditions, with an acceptable closing inventory level.
Quebec and Ontario seem to be the principal regional trouble spots. The brunt of the oil product supply stringency has been felt in central Canada at the reseller level. Companies affected include medium-sized resellers, who sell both at retail
and wholesale levels, and retail sellers of gasoline and heating oils.
Officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the National Energy Board are keeping in close touch with these resellers, seeking by all possible means to create the conditions for them to get product supply. As well, officials are in frequent contact with refiners having crude oil or products supply difficulties. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has formally urged refiners to treat the resellers fairly. Officials are keeping in close touch with industry and the provinces. The current reading on the situation is "tight but manageable". We have to learn to be a conserving society.
I trust that answers the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to be adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, October 19, 1979