1979-10-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put forward a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of statements made on Monday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) to the effect that the Combines Investigation Act administered by him has, in his opinion, rather large gaps and in some cases is ineffective, and in view of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Clark) apparent agreement, as witnessed by his response on Tuesday to questions by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), that the government's private sector orientation depends heavily for its success on effective competition in the marketplace, 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member from Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston):
That the House instruct the government to introduce on a priority basis the stage II amendments to the Combines Investigation Act as recommended by the director of investigation and research of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FISHERIES
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the minister's public pronouncements concerning the paramount importance of the inshore fishery, and considering the fact that since June no inshore vessels in Atlantic
Canada or Quebec have been replaced, and because inshore fishermen desperately need these vessels if they are to reap the benefits of the 200-mile limit, 1 ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy):
That this House call upon the government to immediately replenish the fishing vessel subsidy program by approving the funds necessary to bring it up to the amount allocated in the fiscal year 1978-79.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
My motion concerns the JET program, a Canada Employment and Immigration Commission program designed to assist the integration of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 into the work force. The JET program, initiated by the Liberal government in March, 1978, will soon be terminated. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That the government advise the House what it proposes to do to replace the JET program.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, if it is to be presented at this time, will require unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I rise to put forward a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity-urgent because of the impending introduction of the budget.

October 19, 1979
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker):
That the legislation or budgetary measures to be proposed in this House to encourage the conversion of home heating appliances from oil to gas should extend at least the same financial assistance to home owners in the province of Quebec who wish to convert the heating systems in their homes from furnaces burning imported oil to Canadian-made heating units using domestically produced electricity.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of this motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
An increase in wharfage charges announced by the National Harbours Board for east coast ports has more than doubled the tariff for grain and grain products in the port of Halifax-Dartmouth. This will damage the competitive position of the port and hurt producers and shippers. Accordingly, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House request the Minister of Transport to direct a review by the National Harbours Board of the increase in the wharfage charge affecting grain and grain products so that the adverse effect will be minimized.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Halifax West. Is there unanimous consent for such a motion to be put to the House?


TELEVISION
Some hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.


CALL FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE ON CANADIAN CONTENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, wish to put forward a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The president of the CBC, in his annual report released while Parliament was not in session this summer, stated that English-speaking adult TV viewers are spending nearly 75 per cent of their viewing time watching foreign programs, and that their children are spending 83 per cent of their viewing time doing the same; that French-speaking adult Canadian TV viewers are spending 48 per cent of their viewing time watching foreign programs, and their children 56 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a motion, would he proceed to it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House immediately begin an emergency debate with respect to the Canadian content available on our television channels.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to debate such a motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HARBOURS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

O)


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Due to the decision of the federal Treasury Board to cut back on casual employees at Canadian airports and additional operational cuts ordered recently in Atlantic Canada, forcing airports to restrict runway use during snow and adverse weather conditions this fall and causing vocal concern by some airport managers that the safety of the travelling public may be affected; due to the fact that for the past month, in eliminating a function of air radio operators because of a contract dispute, Transport Canada has ordered runway and approach lighting at some airports in Atlantic Canada to remain at the same intensity regardless of weather conditions, causing pilots to complain of blinding lights during clear weather conditions; and due to the fact that certain of these airports generate revenue through air radio unaccounted for in actual landings, as witnessed by the $3.6 million presently owed the federal government for air radio services supplied in Atlantic Canada to three U.S. airlines, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That the government cancel its ordered maintenance cutback and terirf employee cuts at airports in Atlantic Canada and give air radio operators more recognition in order to protect the safety of the travelling public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 19, 1979


COPYRIGHT
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the legislation protecting authors is already over half a century old, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That jurisdiction over copyright be immediately transferred from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the Department of the Secretary of State which is certainly better qualified to undertake as soon as possible a most important review aimed at protecting Canadian culture, that is, of the Copyright Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. The presentation of such a motion for debate under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the announced intention of the government to strengthen Canadian shipbuilding and to encourage individual enterprise; in light of the fact that actions taken by this government have frozen the 35 per cent subsidy which has for many years been available to fishermen purchasing new vessels; in light of the fact that in my home province of Manitoba, which last year received $280,000 and this year has received only $20,000, the Deparment of Fisheries and Oceans has on file the applications of 90 fishermen seeking well over $130,000 in subsidies; and in light of the fact that this freeze has meant fishermen have been unable to upgrade their boats and, in Manitoba, boat works have been forced to lay off workers and are likely to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars this year, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to lift the freeze immediately on the subsidy program and process those applications which are presently on file.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for consideration by the House at this time would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the acceptance by this House of the motion by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) regarding wharfage fees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni):
That the Minister of Transport incorporate into that review the instructions of his department to the Atlantic Pilotage Authority to increase substantially pilotage fees in Atlantic waters.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to the consideration of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. 1 want to return to the issue of the Foothills oil pipeline, which I am sure is an issue the Prime Minister does not particularly wish to pursue. I would like to inform him that we are going to push this issue as hard as we can so that the Americans can at least know where the House of Commons stands with regard to this overland pipeline.
My question to the Prime Minister is this-one I have been asking all week long-
[DOT] (U15)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: The Prime Minister has said that his ministers were meeting with U.S. representatives, pushing the Foothills' proposal. Yesterday, he reeled off a list of meetings between officials, but not one Canadian minister was mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.

October 19, 1979
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Where were these meetings held? Were they specifically directed to the pipeline issue? What was said? Were there any ministers at the meetings to state officially Canada's position on the overland route and, if so, which minister?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure what the practice was in the former government. In this government, the officials, including the ambassador of Canada to the United States, speak on instructions from the ministers. The ministers gave instructions to the officials and the officials carried those instructions forward and made clear, in a way that was absolutely clear to the United States, the support of the Government of Canada for the Foothills' route and the overriding concern of the Government of Canada for the effect of oil spills caused by tanker off the west coast of Canada.


John Carr Munro: I take it from that answer that no ministers were present. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be well advised to check the statements his Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made in the Senate on Wednesday.
My next question is also directed to the Prime Minister. As he is aware, my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, placed on the record yesterday a statement from the U.S. Department of the Interior that Canada, through its new government, had been asked to indicate its preferences, and no official word had been received by the United States as of late August. That U.S. statement was contained in a report dated July 7, 1979, and made public the following month.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House when his ministers made the position of the new government clear during the summer? Evidently, it was neither clear nor official, because the Department of the Interior-the lead co-ordinator of the pipeline project in the U.S.-did not know anything about it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not have Hansard here with me yet. My recollection of the statement partially quoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso yesterday was that it was a partial statement, and that he did not include in his quotation the very important element that the United States request had been for a statement of the Canadian position before September 28. That was the request to which we responded by sending an aide memoire dated September 28.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker. I think it would be most useful to the House and to the country to know exactly what the government finally said to the Americans when they did make that final deadline for submissions in the aide memoire of September 28 to which the Prime Minister just referred.
Did the government firmly state its preference for the Foothills' overland route and, if so-I see the Prime Minister is getting it ready; I hope the aide memoire is a further indication of the openness of this government-did the Prime

Minister clearly state, in terms as strong as those used by the former government in their aide memoire, the preference of this government for the Foothills' project; and would he table the aide memoire so that we can see if this position was as firmly stated as the former government's last April?


Charles Joseph Clark: I can say with a great deal of satisfaction and relief that it was nowhere as difficult making the government of the United States and the Foothills' people aware of our position as it appears to be to make a simple message clear to the hon. member opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We did not have to repeat the statement to the Americans five times in a week. The aide memoire to which the former minister refers was made public. I do not have a copy with me. I am sure if the hon. member checks with his research facilities they will be able to find a copy of that aide memoire. In any event, I will give an undertaking now that as soon as I have a copy of it brought back to me-I just did not bring it with me to the House-naturally, I will lay it upon the Table of the House.


John Carr Munro: Make your position clear to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Windsor West, on a supplementary.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced that the government is increasing the interest rates on Canada Savings Bonds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: That is not a supplementary.


FINANCE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his statement in his press conference this morning, that if the governor of the Bank of Canada recommends another increase in interest rates the government will probably go along with it, in view of the fact that already the 9.6 per cent increase in the cost of living is outrunning the wage index,
October 19, 1979

which is up by only 7.5 per cent, and in view of the fact in that situation another interest rate increase would add to inflation and make things still worse for those who are trying to live on their inadequate wages, may I ask the Prime Minister what this House can do to persuade the government to reverse this idiotic policy of interest rate increases when, in fact, they ought to be reduced?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what this House can do, if it has a practical alternative which is preferable to the policies being recommended by the governor of the Bank of Canada and by this government, is make those policies known to the standing committee to which we have agreed there should be a reference of the question of interest rates, with the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada present as witnesses.


Mr. Chretien:: He is not available; he is afraid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, of course, that response leads me to remind the Prime Minister of suggestions which have been made by this party, particularly by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa.
May 1 put the question this way: In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in the House that the government regards inflation as enemy No. 1, yet has said "no" to subsidies on essential foods, has said "no" to a fair prices commission with the power to roll back unjustified increases, and has proposed only cutbacks in government spending which would have the effect of increasing unemployment and making things worse, when will the Prime Minister take this enemy No. 1 seriously and do something about the rising cost of living?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we take this enemy No. 1 seriously whenever we indicate determination to move on programs which will reduce the burden of the cost of government on the Canadian economy which will re-establish some sense of confidence that there is now in Canada a government prepared to face hard decisions today, rather than roll with easy decisions.
1 know the hon. member does not particularly agree with that approach, because his colleagues and members of the official opposition condemn practically every measure we take designed to bring government costs into line and have that effect upon controlling inflation.


Mr. Breau:: That is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary relates to the fact that not only are workers and their families having trouble keeping up with the cost of living, but so are our pensioners.
My question is this: In view of the fact the present system of indexing old age security and other pension benefits is on a system which is always five months to eight months behind
Oral Questions
and does not relate, in terms of the index, to the things that pensioners actually have to buy, will the government review the formula for indexing, and will it consider establishing a special cost of living index for pensioners, so that they will not continually go behind as they are now?
[DOT] (U25)


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated our intention, in the Speech from the Throne with references to the review of retirement income provisions in the country, to undertake precisely the kind of review to which the hon. member is referring, and a broader review.


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATE OF CANADA SAVINGS BONDS-COST TO TAXPAYERS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question, again, to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced that the government is increasing the interest rate on Canada Savings Bonds to encourage their sales in the face of generally increasing interest rates, increases which are apparently supported by this government.
Can he tell us how much money this increase in Canada Savings Bonds rates will cost the Canadian taxpayer who has to pay the additional cost to the government of money it borrows because of this interest rate policy?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may reply to the hon. member's question, I can give him a specific figure on Monday detailing the anticipated cost of the interest rate increase as it applies to CSBs. 1 would point out to the hon. member that recipients of that interest are, of course, Canadians.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could he also tell us, when he gives us his answer on Monday, how much the increase in the interest rates since this government took office will be adding to the deficit of the government and to government spending generally, both of which the government has said it will be reducing?
In view of the fact that these interest rate increases will obviously increase the deficit and government spending, can he tell us how this is consistent with what the Prime Minister said yesterday and today, that he was making inflation enemy No. 1 and would fight inflation by reducing government expenditures, an obvious discrepancy and contradiction?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may again reply to the hon. member's question, 1 am sure that he is at last realizing the dreadful legacy the former government left this nation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and which is now having to be transformed into the form of an ongoing debt, with the consequential effect on interest rates to which the hon. member referred.

October 19, 1979
Oral Questions


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. With mortage interest rates in this country now at the level of 14 per cent and, as the first minister is aware, with the housing market in this country now in a serious crisis, with starts down 13 per cent, new purchases in a decline, and 30,000 unemployed in the construction industry-with these kinds of figures, is the first minister prepared to develop immediate plans to come to the aid of the housing market in Canada and, in particular, is he prepared to shelve any plans to privatize the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation so that the corporation can get down to the business of solving the housing crisis, rather than worrying about its existence in the next three or four weeks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may 1 say to the hon. member that it is precisely for that reason that we intend to move as quickly as we can with our tax credit proposal.
I would hope the hon. member will use what influence he has in his party to encourage some of the traditional members of the party who might be inclined to obstruct debate on some of the budget bills we have to get through and, consequently, delay the ability of Parliament to deal with the tax credit proposal, not to engage in obstruction but, instead, to help us clean up as quickly as possible the bills overhanging from the former session so we can get on with this aid to the housing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the first minister if he will be prepared to use his influence to influence some of the more traditional members of his party to desist from putting forward outdated ideas about privatizing national corporations that serve the public interest.
In addition, would he also examine his own mortgage credit program and recognize that it will do nothing to stimulate the housing market, that it will only serve 30 per cent of Canadians and, in fact, will not provide any form of assistance to bring new people into the market?
Will the Prime Minister give assurances that this government will shelve plans to privatize CMHC, and will he also undertake immediate plans to reduce mortgage interest rates and help people who really need to buy houses?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I really should not enter into this matter which is internal to the Liberal party, but I cannot miss the opportunity to wish the hon. member as much luck in influencing the members of his party as 1 have had in influencing the members of mine.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In keeping with his opinions on open government, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not it is true that the former member for Don Valley, who is now a prime ministerial adviser, is being considered as a candidate for the post of governor of the Bank of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Patronage.


Donald James Johnston: In view of Mr. Gillies' place in this developing economic policy, and in view of the interesting theories which he himself expressed in hearings before the finance committee last year, would the Prime Minister agree that he should also appear as a witness before the standing committee on finance to examine the interest rate policy of the government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no consideration is being given to the appointment of Dr. Gillies to that position. Indeed, the government has come to no decision as to what list of candidates it may consider for the appointment to the office-of the governor of the Bank of Canada at the expiry of the-


Mr. Foster:: Has the governor of the Bank of Canada resigned?


Charles Joseph Clark: You might like to listen to the rest of the answer-at the expiry early next year of the term of the current governor or, indeed, whether it would be of mutual interest to have the current governor continue in his responsibilities.
With regard to the second part of the question, this government does intend to reverse the practice of the former government, that of hiding away former officials of the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. As the hon. member will know, it was the practice of the former government to refuse Parliament access to the deputy minister responsible to the Privy Council Office or the deputy minister responsible to the Prime Minister's Office.
Dr. Gillies is not of deputy minister status, and we would have to see whether or not his appearance at a committee would create a precedent. I shall take a look at that situation. My expectation is that it will probably not be possible or valuable for Dr. Gillies to appear before that committee, although I share the hon. member's respect for his views.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: some professional views as an economist and also as a member of the opposition at that time.
In view of the very special role that he plays today, it seems to me important that he appear, and my question is, would the Prime Minister encourage him to appear if he is invited by the committee?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is now asking a rather different question. First, he was asking that Dr. Gillies appear in his status as principal adviser in my office. The hon. member is now asking that Dr. Gillies appear at the committee in his capacity as a professional economist. The decision as to whether or not to invite Dr. Gillies is, of course, academic until an invitation comes from the standing committee.


Mr. Kaplan:: You control the committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: If such a question does come, we will consider the implications of the request to the system of government that we have, where deputy ministers and ministers report. We will also consider whether or not Dr. Gillies, in light of his position, has the latitude he formerly enjoyed to give testimony as a professional economist.


John Carr Munro: In other words, no.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. I congratulate the minister on his appointment and wish him well in his new responsibilities.

My question is as follows: Now that the government has failed in its attempt to have General Motors set up shop in Montreal, has the minister received representations from the Minister of Supply and Services to have work resume immediately at Place Guy Favreau? If not, will he give orders for the immediate resumption of work on that important project strongly endorsed by the people of Montreal, the authorities of Montreal, the Montreal Board of Trade and all unemployed construction workers in the Montreal area?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind wishes. In response to his question, I can say that a study is under way now with respect to the market and economic feasibility of the Favreau complex in Montreal which has been promised, on and off, since 1972 by the hon. member and his colleagues on that side, in the absence of any economic feasibility study in place before proceeding with the project. I expect to receive the results of that study, which is now under way, by the end of November.
Oral Questions
At that time the matter will be considered and a decision made as to whether to proceed.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Is the study referred to the one which has been ordered from Conservative engineer Dupras, the first recipient of his colleague's patronizing handouts?


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Small Business and Industry.
In view of the importance of maintaining a strong domestic capability in the construction and the repairing of ships in Canada to maintain some 45,000 jobs connected with the shipbuilding industry, and in view of the fact that the present construction subsidy of 20 per cent has proven to be an effective means of reducing Canadian prices to a level competitive with those of overseas builders-a subsidy which is slated to be removed on December 31, 1979-I would like to ask the minister if he would take the appropriate steps to continue the 20 per cent subsidy and, as well, I would ask him if the government would address itself to the many other recommendations of the consultative task force on the Canadian shipbuilding and repair industry approved by the government last February.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the economic development envelope is down and all of the resources that are available to our department for programs such as the shipping subsidy are under review and study. We have extended the shipbuilding subsidy for three applications that were made available in the province of Nova Scotia.
The program expires in its present state on December 31, 1979, and the subsidy would revert back to the 9 per cent level. The matter is under complete review within the department and will be proceeding to cabinet as a cabinet document. When cabinet has made a decision on the allocation of that type of resource, I will be able to answer more directly.


Herb Breau: Which cabinet?


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 19, 1979
OraI Questions


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if we may have some order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated that if someone other than members on the opposite side of this House felt that the unprecedented ministerial consultations were not appropriate, he would agree to a full investigation of what has been called the trucking affair.
Yesterday, a very distinguished former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Wishart Spence, said:
I would say that any consultation would have to be on the legal propriety of prosecution and not on any other element. It might be, for instance, that some other member of the cabinet might be very experienced in a particular branch of law involved, in which case he might consult him.
Given that the Minister of Transport is not a lawyer, and given that the minister stated outside this House on Wednesday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that he has already transgressed the ordinary bounds of a preamble. 1 think he had better put his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In view of the statement of Mr. Justice Spence and the statements of the Minister of Transport, will the right hon. Prime Minister now agree, in his spirit of open government, to, first, table the documents which were used to brief the Minister of Transport for the Friday meeting and, second, will the right hon. Prime Minister agree to refer this entire matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for comprehensive inquiry and report back to this House; and, if not, why not?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I admire the hon. member's perseverance. When this matter was raised in the House first of all by the hon. member, minutes after the meeting ended, and subsequently in response to questions by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I undertook to look at the law and the precedents regarding the propriety of that meeting.
I have reported to the House of Commons the very firm advice of the law officers of the Crown that there was nothing illegal, nothing inconsistent with either law or with precedent in the practice of the Attorney General of Canada seeking the advice.


Herb Breau: What about morality?


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member has shown a new interest, for his party, in morality and propriety. There was no problem of propriety, no problem of morality, no problem of precedent and no problem of law having to do with the behaviour of the Attorney General of Canada in convening that meeting with his colleagues.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Contrary to all expectations and in spite of a $3.5 million vote which appears in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the year 1979-80 to carry on construction work at the Jonquiere data taxation centre, the President of the Treasury Board announced on July 27 a delay of indefinite duration, even if that project might create over 1,000 full or part-time jobs in a region where the rate of unemployment is one of the highest in Canada.
Could the minister indicate to my constituents, to whom this project is of paramount importance, whether he will react within the next few days to the strong representations which were made to him, first in Ottawa on or about September 18, 1979 when a petition with 22,000 signatures was presented to him; then in Ottawa on the same date when an important memorandum from the municipality of Jonquiere was submitted to him; and then when a personal memorandum was presented to him on August 9, 1979; and, finally, when he had here in Ottawa a personal meeting with the representatives of the city of Jonquiere on October 3 last?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Jonquiere for giving me notice of his question. 1 wish to assure him that the decentralization counter-moves that we made were not made lightly; they were made only after a very thorough examination of the premises taken by the former government with respect to each move.
In the case of the proposed data taxation centre in the city of Jonquiere, 1 wish to confirm that Mayor Dufort did visit my office with three of his officials. I found it a very worth while meeting, and as a result of it I have undertaken to have a representative from my office go to Jonquiere and see firsthand what are the ongoing implications for the federal government and the local municipal government with respect to this situation, bearing in mind that this project was postponed, not cancelled.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport and in the permanent absence of the senator who is negotiating, my question is
October 19, 1979

directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask whether he intends to fulfil the formal undertaking made by the previous government to fully finance the capital costs required for the establishment of a commuter train service in the Montreal area and if so, what is the state of the negotiations with the government of Quebec?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter I will have to discuss with the Minister of Transport because 1 do not have the details here today.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, considering the rumors about negotiations, can the right hon. Prime Minister ask his Minister of Transport to instruct the CNR to freeze or postpone any rate increase until negotiations with Quebec are completed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can discuss it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It is mooted in the public service that there are 2,000 appointments to be screened, reviewed and assigned by the office of human resources in his office.
In view of the fact that yesterday he spoke in the House on the fiftieth anniversary of Canadians women being recognized as persons, and at that time referred to the economic inequality of women, I wonder if he will state at this time how many of the 2,000 appointments will be assigned to women.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as many as possible. I should say, and frankly admit to the House, as I have indicated to my colleagues, that in the past both under the former government and our own, not enough were.


William Kenneth Robinson: A supplementary question. Recognizing that in the past only about 13 per cent of the total number of these appointments had been held by women, would the Prime Minister assure us that there will in the future be a higher proportion of such appointments?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is very much my goal. That was, naturally, along with the considerations of obvious competence, one of the factors which guided us, not simply in looking at the number of women employed in the public service but also looking at the prominence of women employed in the public service.
I was very pleased at the appointment of the Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare, an outstanding public servant, and the agreement of Mrs. Jean Wadds to accept the appointment as High Commissioner to Great Britain.


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


OIL TANKER TRAFFIC ON WEST COAST-ACTION TO PREVENT HARMFUL EFFECTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the previous administration and the present government have lain idly by while oil tanker traffic off the British Columbia coast has risen to the highest, most dangerous levels in Canadian history, and in light of the fact that yesterday the National Energy Board ruled it cannot consider the implications of the proposed increase in marine transport of Alaskan crude oil, can the minister indicate to the House what specific action his government intends to take to deal with the serious and dangerous oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coast?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: The specific question that the hon. member is putting relates to the fact that the National Energy Board has stated it did hot have jurisdiction to consider the environmental implications of that part of a pipeline outside Canada.
I can tell this House through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Canada would not give approval to any pipeline which was subject to Canadian regulatory processes, and which had environmental implications against the public good of Canada, unless adequate environmental studies were undertaken.


REQUEST FOR TASK FORCE STUDY
James Ross Fulton: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In light of the hatchet job done to the Thompson oil port inquiry by the previous administration, and while the United States Congress it attempting to dictate oil transport policy in this country, and knowing that the National Energy Board cannot present the required political or diplomatic positions either to this House or to the United States government, will the Prime Minister assure this House today that he will set up a task force to advise the House, before President Carter visits Canada next month, of the implications of tanker traffic on the marine environment?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as I understand his question, is asking me to up a task force today that would report to this House of Commons, before the visit of the United States President, on all the marine environmental implications of tanker traffic down the west coast. 1 doubt, frankly, that the job could be done that quickly.
What the Minister of the Environment has undertaken to do is to make it clear that even though the National Energy Board does not believe it has jurisdiction in this field, this government has now, through the Minister of the Environment, given a very clear and unequivocal undertaking that there will be adequate environmental impact assessments in relation to any implications of any activity down the west coast of Canada in regard to which there is a regulatory role and

October 19, 1979
Oral Questions
authority, and an approval role and authority, of the Government of Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. The D'Avignon report on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle has outlined clear principles by which employees may be discharged. However, the commissioner of penitentiaries has used an additional principle which he calls the "reverse merit" principle, which really means the better you are, the sooner you get fired-which ought to make the regional administrators of penitentiaries feel pretty secure.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how this principle can be applied and still preserve a high-quality public service?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, 1 believe he is referring to a work force reduction policy which was developed by the former government in 1969 and 1970 in consultation with certain bargaining agents. The policy was reviewed in 1978 by the previous government, again in consultation with those bargaining agents. Once again we are reviewing this policy. As it is a rather intricate program to which the hon. member has referred, 1 believe I should report at a later date to the House as to what our position is with respect to the policy in general.

[ Translation]


CABLEVISION
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Communications but in view of his absence I shall direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the larger part of the population of Quebec City has been denied cable television for several weeks now by striking employees of Cablevision Nationale Ltee of Quebec City, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether or not he is willing to make the necessary representations to the CRTC to have it intervene energetically, and not only to pay lip service, with Cablevision Nationale Ltee and make it negotiate seriously with its employees with a view to settling the strike and having the company respect its obligations toward the people of greater Quebec City?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. I gave him advance notice, so he has had a lot of time to do some positive thinking.
Last March, the former minister of national revenue, the Hon. Tony Abbott, stated that he was prepared to accept a suitable application for appointment of a highway sufferance warehouse in the Renfrew area. A suitable application was received by May 31. Is the present Minister of National Revenue, after reviewing representations from the president of the Ontario Sufferance Warehouse Association, now prepared to give immediate approval to the commitment made by his predecessor and allow the establishment of a highway sufferance warehouse in the Renfrew area of eastern Ontario to be proceeded with on an urgent basis?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been before governments generally through the work of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton for some period of time. I intend to make an announcement shortly with respect to this matter.

[ Translation]


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Since the dismantling or privatization of that corporation was announced, several citizens are worried. Until now, the government has implemented programs to help tenants. The minister doubtless knows that economic strengths are not the same in every province and that. average incomes are not either, and that, in addition, both interest rates and inflation are increasing. If any group of citizens is being burdened by the effects of that situation, it is the tenants. Can the minister tell us whether or not he intends to recommend a program to help tenants directly?
October 19, 1979

I should like to put him another question; does he intend to privatize the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and could that make interest rates go down?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the distinguished former postmaster general. I want to assure him that, despite reports that are going around, there has been no ultimate decision taken on what will or will not be done with Canada Mortgage and Housing.
We on this side are very conscious of maintaining the responsibility of the Government of Canada for the social needs of Canadians in housing. 1 have spoken from time to time with the responsible minister in Quebec about the need to protect tenants and to protect people in that province from any of the unfortunate consequences of high interest rates or any other policies that affect housing.
I think it would be fair to say in this answer that the demographics, as hon. members opposite know, clearly indicate that the demand for housing in the eighties will not be as great as it has been. For that reason it is important that we concentrate on improving the urban core in some cities, the rehabilitation of existing housing and looking after the needs of all tenants.


INQUIRY WHETHER UNDERPRIVILEGED WILL BENEFIT FROM HOUSING POLICY
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for urban affairs. In view of the fact that Mr. Donald Matthews, chairman of the task force on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, seems to have been the former national president of the Progressive Conservative Party as well as a housing developer, can the minister responsible for CMHC tell this House who on this task force was representing the interests and views of underprivileged Canadians in need of social housing, or are we to understand that the minister put the fox in charge of the hen house as far as housing policy is concerned?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to send the hon. member opposite a list of the people who comprise the group looking into the various questions in Canada Housing. Any doubts that this House may have about the political neutrality and objectivity of Mr. Matthews ought to be removed by the fact that his beautiful daughter is married to a very, very prominent Liberal politician.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the new drilling has been completed for the Donkin mine in Cape Breton, which shows huge coal reserves, and the estimate is that if that mine is started now, by 1984 it will replace eight million barrels of oil a year, will the minister say when the money will come from the federal government to start that mine?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the question of the Donkin mine is part of a very important energy package strategy, not only for Nova Scotia but for the maritime provinces.
The timing of the production of the mine is very important to ensure that market conditions and forecasts are such that it will come on stream at the most opportune time. I share with the hon. member the urgent wish that the mine will be started as soon as possible. This matter is under very active consideration at this time and will be discussed in cabinet before very long.


Andrew Hogan: I thank the minister for the information. May I now ask what the condition is as far as the Prince mine is concerned? A pledge was made by the former government to allocate funds. I understand this has not yet been done. That is a very vital part of the whole self-sufficiency argument of making Cape Breton coal useful, instead of importing oil.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there is at the present time a very realistic disposition to expand not only Prince but No. 26 colliery. However, that is without prejudice to the plans for the Donkin mine. However, all these particular aims and objectives have to be co-ordinated so that the coal is not only there when we need it but, hopefully, will not be there too soon.


FISHERIES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to take this opportunity, belated as it is, to congratulate him on his responsibilities and to wish him well.
The minister is aware that no money has been available for the fishing vessel subsidy program since last June. In the meantime, the whole construction season has gone by and the shipyards in the Atlantic area and Quebec have been idle through lack of funds. Is the minister aware of this situation and the fact that hundreds of fishermen in the Atlantic area and Quebec are in desperate need of new vessels? He knows the cost of a longliner over 50 feet is more than half a million dollars. Has the minister requested funds for the subsidy

October 19, 1979
Oral Questions
program, and can he tell us when those funds will be forthcoming?


Hon. Janies A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: As is the case with so many good programs, we have had to place a freeze on this one because of the free spending habits of the government of which the hon. member was a supporter. However, we have had discussions with the provinces and worked out an arrangement whereby there will be at least a partial lifting of the freeze. Details have been worked out so we can implement the program, albeit in a modified way, for the balance of this year and hopefully for at least part of next year.


Bill Rompkey: I thank the minister for his positive answer. I want to make sure it is positive enough. My supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the fact that in the last fiscal year $11 million was allocated for vessel subsidies, and that in the present fiscal year no moneys have been allocated since the new government came to office, is the hon. gentleman prepared now to respond to the needs of the fishermen of the Atlantic area and Quebec by allocating funds at last year's level, to ensure that fishing vessels can be replaced and new vessels built?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: can assure the hon. member, who is a veteran of this House, that I will respond in the appropriate way, the way in which any president of the treasury board would respond to any request from his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
V *	*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the hon. lady tell the House whether the emissary extraordinary, or the extraordinary emissary to the Middle East, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, did indeed hold any public or clandestine meetings with representatives of the PLO before the PLO has met the two conditions which the Prime Minister laid down for relationships with, or recognition of that terrorist organization?
Further, if Mr. Stanfield has indeed had such meetings with the PLO, has he discussed with the PLO any topics other than the moving of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and has he made any undertakings to continue further contacts with the PLO?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Stanfield since his return to Canada, but I have read in the press and listened to reports that he stated he had met

with a representative of the PLO, and I am perfectly willing to believe Mr. Stanfield's comment. It was in no way clandestine. He said what he had done, and he did that knowing the terms of his reference permitted him to meet with anyone he felt it was appropriate to consult.


DRESS OF MEMBERS IN CHAMBER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have received a note from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) concerning his failure to wear a tie in the chamber today. The fact is that two or three members have brought this to my attention; I noticed it myself. It is, of course, a departure from an accepted standard of dress which has been agreed to and enforced by the House for quite some time. Our procedure puts me, at least, into somewhat of a "Catch 22" situation. If I recognize the hon. member for the purpose of addressing the House in connection with a question of privilege or otherwise, then I would be offending the very standard with which we are concerned. In order to be able to hear the hon. member on this subject it seems to me I would need the consent of the House. Is the House agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIVILEGE
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising from a reply the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) gave to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) on Wednesday last. He said, and 1 quote from page 291 of Hansard for Wednesday:
Ministers of this government have been in touch with Foothills and in fact with United States officials throughout the summer to make clear the preference of the Canadian government for the Foothills group and to make very clear our concern about the environmental impact of tanker traffic off the west coast.
On the same day in the Senate, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret) stated:
As a government, as you well know, we strongly encouraged and urged the United States government to adopt the Foothills proposal both officially and in a memorandum of intent sent to the President of the United States recently and also through unofficial discussions held throughout the summer by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House that in all those meetings he listed yesterday no ministers were present. I refer him to a taped conversation which was accepted in the House, and which was accepted when it was referred to in the House, and in particular to a question dated August 23, directed in the latter part of the summer to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the minister
October 19, 1979

who, according to the Prime Minister, was in touch with the United States government all throughout the summer urging the acceptance of the Foothills all-land route. I quote;
Q. Is Canada going to have to re-endorse the Foothills proposal in light of Schlesinger's memo?
Not "any change in Foothills' application" but "Schlesing-er's memo".
A: (Hnatyshyn). Well, I think the position we are taking as a new government is that we are going to review the alternatives and I simply think it is premature to indicate a position on the matter now.
Q. What's the status of the former government's commitment? They said they preferred the Foothills route. Does that stand?
A. Well, 1 think that a new government is going to look at the alternatives and I don't want to suggest that in any way the review itself means that we are either going to change or not change, but I just think the 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.
This is the minister who, all during the summer, according to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret), has been pushing the Foothills route throughout the summer, as stated in Hansard by the Prime Minister. To continue with the taped report:
Q. We have had some technical problems. Could I repeat the question about whether you feel you are under any pressure from the American government to act on this matter?
A. Well, what I have said is that it is my understanding that the Americans, the administration and the new occupants of those positions of energy and the Department of the Interior, are in fact themselves going to look at the whole question and that there is certainly no indication to me, at least based on the information I had at my disposal at the time, of any rejection or acceptance of one alternative or the other.
He was clearly talking about alternatives in the sense of other proposals opposed to Foothills. The answer continued:
So that is still very much open. What I am saying is that I take it that Mr. Schlesinger, in his statement, is expressing his point of view but my understanding is that it is not one that has been accepted as a position of the administration in the United States.
So we find the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the end of the summer saying he is taking a fresh look at the whole proposal.
The Prime Minister informed this House that throughout the course of the summer this minister, along with some of his colleagues, had been urging the acceptance of Foothills' proposal.
I would like to quote another minister who was named as urging the acceptance of Foothills' proposal during the course of the summer, as stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I refer to the reported remarks of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) in a story in The Vancouver Sun of October 18, which reads in part as follows:
The Vancouver South MP said in an interview that while the government favours an all-land plan put forward by Foothills Oil Pipe Lines Ltd.-and has gone so far as to say so in a recent aide memoire-
This refers to the aide memoire the Prime Minister said was sent at the end of September.
Privilege-Mr. A l bn and
-"there are more than just environmental considerations'' to take into account.
"Trans Mountain (Pipe Line Co.) at least has the favourable characteristic of getting the tankers out of congested waters''-
The Prime Minister has indicated that this minister throughout the course of the summer had no doubts and was pushing the Foothills' all-land route. This article was made public. It was read, presumably, by the Americans, and it cast doubts. It extolled the virtues of Trans Mountain and a tanker route. Compounding this impression-it is more than an impression; there was a statement by the Prime Minister-was a statement read to this House and which was made by the department of the interior, the lead department, saying that at least halfway through the summer no word had been heard from the Canadian government. The Prime Minister said there were meetings of just officials, let alone officials for ministers during this period.
My question of privilege is this: The Prime Minister of this country today clearly states to this House and to the Canadian people that his ministers-and the government is the Prime Minister and his ministers-have been urging the United States government throughout the summer to accept the Foothills' route. At the end of August the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, one of the lead ministers of this government, said he was looking at all the fresh new proposals and making no commitment with respect to Foothills. This was compounded by the Minister of the Environment who said in Vancouver a week ago that Trans Mountain had its virtues.
It seems to me that this is shoddy, to say the least. I would like some clarification from the Prime Minister because I think this is misleading the House of Commons and the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) has put his own description on it. He said it is shoddy. That seems to me to characterize the intervention as a disagreement, perhaps, and a dispute over the quality of the answer given. As we all know, answers which are or appear to be on the basis of argument and in conflict with other answers may be the subject of discussion, but I will have some difficulty recognizing this as a question of privilege in its basic form.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) was seeking the floor, but I have to say that on the basis of the intervention and the fact that there is no motion at the moment which would compel any action by the Chair, I do not under the circumstances think we can pursue the matter as a question of privilege because in my opinion it clearly is a matter of disagreement and dispute and does not constitute a question of privilege.


MR. ALLMAND-DRESS OF MEMBERS IN CHAMBER
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to the wearing of ties in the House of Commons. I put this question of privilege as a serious one. This morning it was my intention to change into a shirt and tie and come here dressed according to

October 19, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Allmand
the traditional rules, but at the last minute I received several important telephone calls.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to hear me out. 1 received important telephone calls, with the result that when the bells rang for the calling of the House I did not have time to change. In the circumstances I thought it was more important to come here without a tie and participate in the proceedings of the House than come late or not at all.
1 really want to question the propriety of this rule-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: If hon. members opposite would be quiet and listen to my argument, I would like Your Honour to reconsider this rule. Parliament is a very old institution, and proper dress in the House of Commons has varied considerably over the 700 or more years Parliament has existed as an institution. For most of those centuries ties in the House of Commons were not the rule. It seems to me that the important thing under the rule of proper decorum in the House of Commons is proper dress and neatness and not necessarily the wearing of ties.
I have visited other Parliaments in the world, and I think that if one inquired of the Parliaments of many countries in the Inter-Parliamentary Union one would find that the wearing of ties is not the rule.
Second, I would like to remind this House that this is a House of Commons. I was just reading the rights and privileges of members of Parliament. This is a house of commoners, and it is my opinion that to the majority of people in Canada common dress is not the wearing of ties, if we consider the total range of population.
The tie I am wearing was lent to me by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), who is an Inuit. There are Indians and Inuit in this Parliament, and it is not proper to demand the wearing of ties of people whose traditional dress does not include the wearing of ties.
Earlier this week we celebrated "Persons" day which recognized equality between men and women in Parliament. It was a very important anniversary. In this respect I think men in this House should have the same freedom of dress as women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: 1 point out that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) is not wearing a tie today. The hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) is not wearing a tie. The hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) is not wearing a tie.
Consequently, I would like Your Honour to reconsider this rule. I think it is anachronistic in 1979 or 1980. I think my constituents want me to be here whether I am wearing a tie or not, and I argue that my privilege to speak as an elected member of Parliament for a constituency was interfered with

merely because I did not have a tie on today, when I wanted to ask a very important question on an important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to entertain this matter in this way. The hon. member knows that this has been an accepted standard and that standards of dress are very difficult to enforce, define and categorize. For many years all commoners have accepted a standard of dress for men in this House.
I grant that some of the hon. member's representations may be very reasonable. Nevertheless, it has been the accepted standard here by all members of this House of Commons that the standard of dress for men includes ties. I simply say that if the hon. member or any other hon. member wants to try to change that, the right thing to do, surely, would be to do it through their caucuses or perhaps through representations to a committee which might make a recommendation so that the House can change this rule. It is not for me to decide, thank heaven, what the standard of dress should be. The House has made that decision through a long accepted practice, and all I am doing is enforcing it. If the hon. member wants to change it, he should persuade his colleagues, and I will be happy to enforce whatever change there might be. However, until that time comes I am bound to follow the practices of the House as they have been well known to me since I have been here.


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


MR. BREAU-ALLEGED INSULTING REMARKS OF PRIME MINISTER
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) today, in my view, failed to comply with Standing Order 35 concerning the use of disrespectful and offensive language against members of this House. I therefore rise on a question of privilege to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to clarify the matter because I do not think that any member wants to offend others.
On two occasions today, the Prime Minister made reference to members on this side of the House in a way that could be construed as offensive. First, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) regarding House procedures and the legislative program, the Prime Minister stated that some members on this side of the House, some members-he did not specify from which party- had decided to obstruct the budget bills and the business of the House. Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Prime Minister through you that the budget bills are not yet on the order paper, that no member has seen any, that no one knows if they will be printed in exactly the same format and with the same content as in the last Parliament. Therefore, how can one conclude that members on this side of the House have already decided on the stance they will take during a budget debate or a debate on a budget bill?
October 19, 1979

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is imputing motives, and he did say "some members" without referring to any party. 1 would ask the Prime Minister to clarify his statements and remind him that those summer caucus meetings are over. He is now in the House of Commons in the Canadian Parliament and we expect on this side of the House to scrutinize all the bills he will introduce, whether they be budget bills, bills from the last Parliament or any other bill, first because it is our duty as members to scrutinize the content and presentation of the bills.
The second example I want to deal with in my remarks relates to the arrogant attitude shown today in the House by the Prime Minister, and I would like him to clarify this, Mr. Speaker. At one point, he said in an answer and while looking at me that I had a newly found interest in morality. It may well be that he did not quite understand what I had said, and I would like to give him the opportunity to clarify this, because I do not think he would want to question my political morality, present or past.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think there can be no better determination of the intent of hon. members opposite to obstruct the business of the House than the three points of privilege we have heard this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to the question raised concerning the reference I made, that was in the context of an interjection from the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) relating to morality. He mentioned the word "morality". I was speaking about standards of public morality and 1 suggested that in the past, when that party formed the government, there had not been everywhere the same interest for matters of public morality, which he suggested by the way he interjected in the debate. That's all.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I would add that the Prime Minister has in fact just done it again since in light of the questions of privilege we have raised today he has imputed motives to us by saying that we wanted to make systematic obstruction of the proceedings of the House. I would like to point out to him, Mr. Speaker, that this lengthy five-month delay in calling Parliament has contributed much more to the delay in the proceedings of the House than the intelligent questions of privilege that have been raised today.


Mr. Speaker:: I would have to check the record, I suppose, but my recollection is that what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said today had to do with the hope that hon.
Grain Handlers' Dispute
members in the House could be persuaded not to obstruct the business of the House in the future.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In any case, even to me the remarks just made by the right hon. Prime Minister that actions taken this morning are in fact an indication of an intention to obstruct the business of the House may be unpleasant, but certainly they are not unparliamentary and 1 have no basis on which 1 can found any question of privilege; nor have I been asked to found one by way of any motion. In terms of the language used by the right hon. Prime Minister, I have to determine whether or not any unparliamentary allegation has been made by him. I am not aware of any, but if the perusal of the record shows me to be in error, I will certainly allow further argument on it. For the moment, however, I do not see any.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege I would just like to clarify if, following your ruling a while ago, you still consider that imputing motives to members of Parliament is unparliamentary. Could you please clarify for us whether or not imputing motives to a member of Parliament or a group of members of Parliament is unparliamentary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the question period earlier today the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) asked if I would put upon the Table a copy of the aide memoire which was published by the Government of Canada on October 1. I would like permission to table that aide memoire in both official languages.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I had expected questions directed to me regarding the work stoppage in the port of Montreal, but in light of the fact there were none, I have an announcement to make for the edification of hon. members.
In view of the considerable interest displayed in the House relative to mediation efforts concerning the strike involving the port of Montreal grain workers and the National Harbours Board, hon. members will be pleased to learn that a memoran-

October 19, 1979
Grain Handlers' Dispute
dum of agreement was entered into last evening and it is anticipated that a ratification vote will be held over the weekend which will lead to resumption of grain elevator operations in the port of Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 1 am quite optimistic with respect to the ratification, and if all goes well, I would expect early resumption in terms of the port of Montreal getting back to work as soon as possible. I hope this is of some benefit to all members of the House.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of my party to inform the House that we are very happy this strike is over. Unfortunately, we cannot congratulate the minister on having settled it himself. I think that attrition and time were the main factors. There is a well-known saying that time is the healer of all ills. It seems indeed that that is what happened in this case, and one cannot say that the Progressive Conservatives are responsible for settling the dispute in the port of Montreal.
That strike which actually lasted several months occasioned heavy expenses and serious inconvenience to farm producers in that area of Quebec. That is what the minister failed to mention this morning. That is what his government wanted to do for them, to compensate them for the extra expenses and inconvenience they suffered because of that strike that lasted too long. It is obvious that the strike pushed up the cost of grain supplies to flour mills, for example and it is obvious the price of feed grains for farm producers increased by several dollars a ton. When my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier), asked the minister last week what he intended to do about that conflict, he did remind him that this government had intervened immediately right at the start of a similar dispute in western Canada on the Pacific coast. And the hon. member for Longueuil was rightly concerned about the inaction of the Progressive Conservative government about this dispute in the port of Montreal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will come to the House later on to tell us what he intends to do to compensate those who were seriously affected by this dispute. In answer to a question by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ostiguy), the minister said he hoped to be in a position to give fuller information as early as next week, meaning this week, about the breeders who were affected by the strike in the port of Montreal these past months. So I hope that next week the Minister of Agriculture will act on the representations of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe and that help and financial compensation will be forthcoming for those so seriously affected by that strike which lasted much too long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who has expressed our concern about this matter, I want to say on behalf of our party that we welcome the announcement that a memorandum of agreement has been reached between the parties and we hope that it will not be long before operations are resumed.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander). Even though the dispute has been settled, there is a major problem left because feed grain supplies are nil in the port of Montreal.
Does the Minister of Labour intend to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and his colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to speed up the grain movement to the port of Montreal so as to replenish the stocks in time before the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway? Otherwise we will of course have to move grain by rail and perhaps also by boat; does he intend to make representations to that effect?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member that the memorandum of agreement has to be ratified, of course. As I have indicated to him, I am optimistic that the ratification will come through. In terms of the representations just made by the hon. member, for the benefit of my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), certainly 1 will see to it that they are brought to their attention.


POST OFFICE
John Allen Fraser: for leave to introduce Bill C-11, respecting certain postal rates.


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

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
October 19, 1979

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: for leave to introduce Bill C-13, to adjust the Accounts of Canada and to make related amendments to certain acts.


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

BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES On the Order: Government notices of motion:
October 17-The President of the Privy Council:-That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those which govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates:
That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and ten other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject in the Thirtieth Parliament be referred to the committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity of exchanging diplomatic notes with the chief government whip and the House leader of the New Democratic Party. As this is the last day of this important debate and as there are a lot of members who wish to speak, 1 think we can obtain a House order if Mr. Speaker would allow me to move it, seconded by the chief government whip. The number one government speaker today, I believe, is the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). He would get 30 minutes; one speaker in the New Democratic Party would get 30 minutes; the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), who would be our second speaker today, would get 30 minutes; and all other speakers would get 20 minutes, with no extension of time asked for or granted.
The Address-Mr. Yanakis


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if there is need of a seconder of the motion, 1 would be delighted to second it. In any event, we would consent to such an order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and we agree to this proposal. On behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, 1 understand that he will do his best to speak for a shorter period than 30 minutes, but certainly no longer.
May I make one other suggestion which might add one more speaker to the list. According to the rule the debate is supposed to be interrupted at 4.45 o'clock today, but 1 believe there is a well-known understanding that we seldom call for a recorded vote on the main motion with respect to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That is the understanding for today, so perhaps with that understanding the debate might continue until five o'clock and the question can be put at that time.
[ Translation]


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am told there has been consultation. While I have not been consulted, I am always willing to co-operate. I want to assure the House of my co-operation, even though 1 had the right to object. Thus I find the proposal reasonable, and I accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the order. Briefly they are that as we proceed to the resumption of the consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the first speaker from the government, the first speaker from the New Democratic Party and the second speaker from the official opposition shall be entitled to speak for 30 minutes; that other speakers will be entitled to speak for 20 minutes; and that there will be no recorded division. Therefore, the debate this afternoon shall continue until five o'clock rather than being interrupted in accordance with the Standing Order.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 18, 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. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks in the throne speech debate I should like to extend my best wishes to His Excellency the Governor General who presided for the first time at the official

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Yanakis
opening of the Thirty-first parliament. 1 first met Mr. Schrey-er in 1965 when he was member for a Manitoba riding and at that time we were sitting opposite each other in this House. He then served as premier of his province, and in that capacity had a brilliant political career in the service of his fellow citizens, and I wish to offer him, Mr. Speaker, my best wishes in his new office as Governor General of Canada.
I also wish to congratulate the sponsors 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) on the excellent way in which they performed their duty. They gave a fine picture of their ridings and showed that they have much to contribute to Parliament. The new Parliament is made up of newly elected members in all parties, which should give a new impetus to Canadian federalism and prove that the system is still very strong, judging by the calibre of the men and women willing to serve their country. I therefore wish all these newcomers much success in their new responsibilities.
It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am delighted about your appointment to the Chair of this House. The fact you were appointed from an opposition party is unique in the history of our Parliament, and this is all to your credit, because it shows how impartial you have always been. I extend my best wishes to you on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, I was confirmed for a fifth mandate as the representative of my constituency with a record majority in the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge. This is an honour which, of course, is shared by my family, and it is a token of confidence of my electors towards their member who has been sitting here for 14 years. I want to thank them sincerely and to assure them of my complete dedication in their service and in the service of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, as several hon. members, I was very pleased to hear the Speech from the Throne which was read in the Senate by His Excellency the Governor General. It is the fifth Speech from the Throne I have had the advantage to hear, and I must admit I was very disappointed by this one. Like Canadians, I thought that the new government would give a new impetus to our economy, propose new policies in the area of agriculture, take a new approach to our energy problems, reassure Middle East countries about its long-term foreign policies following the well-known and dramatic blunder made by the Prime Minister when he mentioned the possibility of Canada moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On the contrary, the Speech from the Throne is entirely lacking in specific references to the orientation of the Clark government foreign policy and the future of our country.
With regard to the Quebec referendum, not a single word, although we all know that since 1867, when the British North America Act was adopted, our country has never been faced with such constitutional problems. Never has the unity of this

country been so threatened. The government did not deem it necessary to even make reference to it, probably believing they would make another mistake they might have to regret, knowing full well that their position on this issue and their policies vis-a-vis the provinces are not very clear. The right hon. Prime Minister prefers not to get his feet wet and capitalize on the joint efforts of the federal and provincial Liberals from Quebec to bring the referendum battle to a successful conclusion, only to claim credit for a moral victory later although not having been involved in the debate.
Indeed, that is the position of the other Tory provinces which are fed up with Quebec's claims within confederation. To show Quebec a spirit of co-operation and a new openness to good understanding, the right hon. Prime Minister has agreed after being in power for five months to give Quebec and the provinces control over the Loto Canada lottery-can you imagine-in return for a tiny monetary compensation which is tantamount to giving the province of Quebec a candy to stop recriminations. This had Mr. Parizeau, the Quebec Minister of Finance, saying that things were finally starting to open up in Ottawa. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.
During the election campaign, I told my constituents in Berthier-Maskinonge about the danger of electing a Progressive Conservative government, especially one dominated by Western Tory premiers in a particularly difficult period in terms of energy supply. Indeed, as we know, they have the oil.
Five months have elapsed since the Progressive Conservatives took over and we now find ourselves in the midst of an energy crisis. We were told recently by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that there is not enough oil to supply homes in Eastern Canada next winter. That is all done undoubtedly to make us swallow more easily a substantial increase in the short term, which was not long in coming, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the minister announced Tuesday night that an increase of 34 cents to 40 cents a gallon of fuel and heating oil was expected for 1980.
Everything is clear now. We wanted to know the position of the Clark government on energy matters. Now we know it, and it is just the beginning. In years to come, we shall be faced with other major increases which will place Canadians, especially those of eastern Canada, in an intolerable situation as regards heating their homes and filling up their gas tanks.
As for us Liberals, our position has always been clear and it still is. We subsidized the consumer, we allowed a price increase which was just enough to stimulate production. This did not please the premiers of oil-producing provinces very much, but we had to consider the needs of all Canadians. It is unwise for the cause of national unity to tell energy-producing provinces that domestic oil prices must reach world levels and that any surplus belongs to them so that they can put into so-called heritage funds billions of dollars at a time when the

eastern provinces fight unemployment and stagnation. These rich provinces have a short memory. They seem to forget their leaner years when all Canada came to their assistance through oil exploration subsidies as well as in the agricultural and transportation fields. What seems even more ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this new government would like to do a hatchet job on the national corporation of Petro-Canada which was set up by the Trudeau government and received royal assent in July 1975.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very concerned about the fate of Petro-Canada, as is confirmed by a recent survey among Canadians which shows that they are in favour of leaving untouched this national corporation and several other Canadian public and business companies and corporations. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that any country seriously concerned about securing energy supplies for its citizens will create a national petroleum corporation. In Canada, eight multinational companies share among themselves 91 per cent of our gas and oil. Petro-Canada is a well-administered and efficient corporation with assets of more than $5 billion. It is a profitable corporation which is not afraid of taking risks.
Up to now, those operations have been successful in the Arctic, in Nova Scotia, off Newfoundland and in the west. With Petro-Canada as negotiating agent with Mexico, Venezuela and other oil exporting countries, Canadians have no reason to be afraid of any shortage such as happened last winter when some parts of the country experienced oil shortages because the big multinational Exxon, of which Imperial Oil is a subsidiary, had diverted oil supplies from Canada to the United States.
Now in office, as in many other fields this government is confronted with election commitments, and as it tries to save face, it hesitates to decide what to do about that company. Canadians are not taken in. They will not appreciate the government position in this regard. After five months in power, Canadians are still waiting for those magic formulas the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign to stimulate the economy. As the Prime Minister said solemnly, as we enter the 1980s the ministers were given a mandate to change the direction of Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are off to a shaky start.
Last week the governor of the Bank of Canada announced the third interest rate increase under the new Conservative government, under a Prime Minister who barely nine months ago was going on record as Leader of the Opposition saying that interest rate increases were out of reason. He now agrees with the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, that U.S. rate increases should be followed, however severe the hardships for the Canadian taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, in five months since they were elected, interest rates went up three times to a Canadian record. Mr. Clark is learning that he views matters quite differently now that he has to take the decisions instead of criticizing. The government
The Address-Mr. Yanakis
pretend to be looking for long-term solutions but they only do patchwork, as in their interest rate and property tax credit program. It will be interesting to see how the Prime Minister will go about implementing his rather vague program of economic growth. Mr. Speaker, it is stated in the throne speech that the government will have to approve a mortgage interest and property tax credit program.
In his introduction the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) indicated the government wanted to free the people in order to strengthen liberty. What he forgot is that the only way to free the people is to bring down social and economic barriers, but there is no sign of that in the throne speech.
There are in this country millions of people who are forgotten, unthought off, neglected and even despised. There is nothing for them in the throne speech. What this government is doing is raising barriers and emphasizing divisions. Quite the contrary, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) indicates the election promise of mortgage rate tax credit will benefit
300,000	Canadians who will have a stake in the country. He suggests this will stimulate employment and have economic spin-offs. He forgets to say what is in store for the remaining 40 per cent of the people in rental housing in Canada and the 60 per cent in Quebec. This program brings them no direct benefit. The minister seems to be saying that since he promised them nothing he does not have to think about them. The only people who count for this government are those to whom it made promises; others do not count.
Mr. Speaker, I remember that when Senator Edward Kennedy came to visit Ottawa, two or three years ago, to consult our Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on our hospital and health insurance program, which he wanted to introduce in the United States, in answer to a question concerning the tax credit on mortgages, he suggested that we do not embark on this program which is already implemented in the United States, and does far more harm than good there for most people.
In fact, this program helps mostly people with upper middle or high incomes. I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that this Progressive Conservative government persists in going through with this policy notwithstanding much advice to the contrary, because this Progressive Conservative government wants to preserve its tradition of legislating in favour of the rich at the expense of the working people.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying at the beginning of my remarks that there was not a single word about agriculture in the throne speech, and God knows that when the Progressive Conservatives were in opposition they knew all the answers to our agricultural problems. After five months in power, nothing, not even the hope of a new policy in the throne speech. Canada is renowned as the granary of the world with its cereal crops, particularly in the west. Furthermore, it is known as one

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Yanakis
of the great cattle producers in the world, and in the eastern part of the country the dairy farmers produce almost all the natural milk, industrial milk, butter and cheese, not to mention poultry farmers as well as beef and pork producers.
The government did not think once about helping them face the ever-rising cost of feed products and administration. Concerning the crucial problems of the agricultural economy about which the Progressive Conservatives were so concerned when they were in opposition, not one word in the throne speech, as if all our farmers suddenly became prosperous and the government had to consider other priorities.
Mr. La Salle, who is not in the House today, has not treated me as courteously as I did last week when I listened to his speech. Last Tuesday he attempted to bring the agricultural issue into perspective by taking credit for the dairy policy proposed by the Liberal government when he announced the reimbursement of export taxes amounting to $26 million and the readjustment of milk quotas on the basis of consumption.
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the silence of his government in the Speech from the Throne, which, I am sure, will provoke smiles among the farmers of his Joliette riding and the Delanaudiere area where 1 come from, particularly also among the members of APU, Mr. La Salle discussed the dairy policy support program while he attempted to take credit for it. The objectives of that policy are, first, to establish quotas for industrial milk on the basis of Canadian demand in order not to flood the consumer market and to protect producers; second, to index the subsidy paid to industrial milk producers on the basis of inflation costs and production cost increases; and third, to hand back to producers the levy of 20 cents a hundredweight on deliveries to absorb the export cost of production within the quotas set for producers.
This is where those $26 million are coming from. It is not a subsidy, it is just a deposit which producers have left in the hands of the Canadian Dairy Commission and which will be repaid to them very soon. There was nothing new in all this as the subsidies established by the Liberals under the dairy policy is a statutory program that was always criticized by the Progressive Conservatives. But they have yet to propose an alternative. Instead the minister should have announced at the opening of this Parliament the new agricultural policies proposed by the Progressive Conservatives to assure a balanced operational income to our farmers in a period when inflation is so high.
Minister La Salle who, in the past, was the advocate of workers criticizing the small changes brought to the unemployment insurance program by the Liberal government effective last July in answer to the demands of employers who had problems to hire manpower, Minister La Salle-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but since the beginning of his remarks, on several occasions he referred to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the Minister for Supply and Services, by his family

name. It has been a long established tradition in this House that in referring to an hon. member, one should either mention the name of his riding or his full title in the cabinet.


Antonio Yanakis: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should call him the hon. minister La Salle in order to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. The hon. member for Joliette is the Minister for Supply and Services.


Antonio Yanakis: That's it! I just cannot get used to his new title.
When faced with the problems of the employers who were experiencing difficulties in hiring labour, the hon. Minister for Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) never revealed that his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) was planning to make things even more difficult for the recipients of unemployment benefits by reducing by almost a billion dollars the amount of benefits paid to the unemployed and by imposing harsher penalties for those who do not respect the provisions of the act. Would it be in order to find the necessary money and deliver their extravagant election promises such as a tax credit on mortgages and property taxes? Now that they are in power, not a word in his speech concerning measures designed to help workers. What a drastic change of attitude.
In his speech the hon. Minister of Supply and Services said that when the Liberals were in power the number of unemployed reached 1,500,000. I just wonder where he got those figures. To him the value of figures is irrelevant. What he is interested in, Mr. Speaker, is simply to mystify people as he is used to. Well, in order to refresh his memory I will remind him that the actual number of unemployed never went over 900,000 when the Liberals were in power and the national rate never exceeded 9 per cent.
Right now, thanks to the last budget presented by Mr. Chretien, the former minister of finance in the former Trudeau cabinet, the number of unemployed has been lowered to nearly 700,000 and the national rate is down to 7 per cent for a workforce of 10,300,000 Canadians. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker, and in his new position the minister should know that he cannot juggle figures as he sees fit because people are not fooled so easily. I challenge the Progressive Conservative government to improve in the coming months the situation, especially the economic situation in which it has put us since it came to power.
Mr. Speaker, I could speak at length on the legislative program of this government but I notice that my time is running out. Canadians keep their eyes wide open on the Clark government whose actions have already started to create much scepticism among the public, among businessmen and our international partners. The hesitations of the government, the Prime Minister's untimely statements on the issue of the move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his energy policy
October 19, 1979

which is bound to increase the cost of living and will fuel current inflation, his indifference towards the Quebec referendum, his monetary policy are already very expensive for Canadians although this government has only been in power for five months. We are still waiting for the prophetic Prime Minister who was to work miracles and cure the ills of our economy. In the 1980s he will have to act otherwise we in the opposition will have to turf out the government. The lack of reference in the Speech from the Throne to crucial issues reflect the Prime Minister's hesitations and confusion that concern all Canadians as well as several other countries.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour, most of my remarks will have to be made after lunch. But may 1 say in a preliminary sentence that 1 chose to join this throne speech debate because I feel that it is very important that every member of this House understand fully the expenditure plans of the previous government, and the expenditure plans as they are being formed by the present government. I say this in anticipation of the estimates which are now going before the various committees of this House and are being considered by members of the House. I feel I should take an opportunity, just after lunch, to inform the House of some of the stark realities of the position in which the previous government has left this grand nation as a result of their mishandling of our economy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess. [DOT]
[DOT] (MOO)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, just before lunch 1 indicated that 1 intended to join in this throne speech debate largely to outline certain of the realities that faced the nation with respect to the former government's spending plans and the current government's spending plans.
Before I get into the main body of those remarks, I feel I should like to join the many others who have congratulated the House on the selection of the new Speaker to carry on as he did in the earlier Parliament.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) for their excellent addresses in moving and seconding the motion that is now before us.
Of course, 1 should also like to indicate my encouragement to you as Deputy Speaker for accepting your new role, as well as the appointment of the Speaker to which 1 have referred.
I feel that in considering the throne speech, which I would
mention was extended or certainly elaborated upon by the
The Address-Mr. Stevens
Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in this debate, it is particularly important that we as members of Parliament consider the reality of Canada's spending position at the present time. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on October 11 I tabled various documents in this House including the main estimates for the fiscal year 1979-80. We also tabled supplementary estimates A to those main estimates. Before the middle of November we intend to table supplementary estimates B, and it is anticipated that before the end of this fiscal year there will be a further tabling of supplementary estimates C.
The reason I mention that is that I feel it is important, as we consider the spending plans of this government, which are to some degree an extension of the plans of the former government, that we be candid with the Canadian public as to what is the reality of Canada's fiscal position at the present time. I say that because you will recall that when I was tabling, in the rather routine way that it is done, the main estimates for the current fiscal year, the House leader for the opposition party seemed to chide or somehow or other try to get me to say whether I "approve", to use his word, or recommend the main estimates to this House. 1 was very curious why the House leader for the opposition would have chosen that day to appear to be, if not naive, rather childish, knowing as he does that it is certainly not traditional for the person who simply tables the main estimates to make some statement that he recommends them or approves them.
I therefore felt it was perhaps important that I reflect on what the hon. member really had in mind when he made that request. Naturally, knowing that he is a great scholar of the English language, I thought 1 had better go to the Oxford dictionary to see what in fact is meant by the word "recommend". I think it is interesting to get that on the record. Oxford says that to recommend is to give in charge to God a person, his care, etc.; to speak or write of in favour or trial; say something is fit. When we turn to the word "approve", we find it means to confirm, sanction, commend, pronounce or consider good.
When you think of the significance of those two words as defined in the Oxford dictionary, I am a little pressed to understand why the House leader used the word "recommend". If in fact what he was seeking was an approval, what he was in effect asking me to do was to refer the main estimates and confirm them, sanction them, commend them, pronounce them or consider them good.
I had been very careful when I tabled those main estimates to make it clear that they were exactly as tabled in February this year by the previous government. We had taken that very, very conscious step because we believed, as the ongoing process of this House would evolve, that it was necessary, certainly from a procedural standpoint, to get those estimates reintroduced for consideration by the House. Frankly, if the House leader feels any better on that basis as part of the ongoing process of this House, I recommend them to the House and that they get on with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
414

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Stevens


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The thing I think we have to make very clear is that those main estimates, as it has now evolved, are only part of the ongoing considerations that this House must bear in mind concerning the over-all spending plans certainly of the former government and currently of this present government. There are four things I would suggest that hon. members bear in mind as they work their way through the main estimates, the supplementary estimates A and supplementary estimates B. Those four things are as follows.
[DOT] (M10)
Hon. members will note that I received first reading today with respect to a bill to alter the accounts of Canada. I am going to touch on that a little more fully later. It is a sad story. We have found, largely through the work of the Comptroller General of Canada, that the previous government was recording various assets as being realizable assets on the part of the Government of Canada when in fact there was no net worth there.
We feel the time has come to make some of these revelations. We are not talking about nickels and dimes. We are no longer talking about "What's a million?" We are talking about "What's a billion?" The amount of the write-off that this House is going to be asked to consider with respect to the fiscal year 1978-79 is now over $4 billion. When we look at these main estimates which were first tabled in February of this year, there was absolutely no indication by the government of the day that there was serious doubt with respect to some of the assets they were still recording as being fair assets on the part of the Government of Canada and which, if they had written them off in the 1979 fiscal year, would have indicated their deficit was up by over $4 billion. That was never revealed.
Second, it is important to bear in mind that in considering the main estimates one must consider supplementary estimates A, which have already been tabled in this House. I would suggest, and hon. members will have ample time to do this, that they also consider supplementary estimates B, which will be introduced certainly early enough to allow hon. members to look at them before they have to pass an appropriations bill indicating their approval of the main estimates.
Finally, in the few minutes available to me I hope to touch on the question of the various liabilities that the previous government knew to exist but which they chose not to reflect in those main estimates tabled last February. In short, when the House leader of the opposition asks me whether I approve the main estimates, I have to say they can only be approved in the context of the four other elements that I have indicated. To say otherwise would have been nothing short of making a representation to this House.
Let me go further. As I have said, I welcome the opportunity to make it clear that I am recommending to the House, in the context that I have indicated, that they pass these estimates, the supplementary estimates I have tabled and those I will table in the future which, taken together, and I emphasize this, will represent this government's expenditure plans.

The situation faced by this government with respect to managing expenditures for the current fiscal year is a difficult one. We inherited a set of programs operating in full flight, if you like, on the basis of the spending authorities planned by the previous government, both in the estimates tabled last February and in the subsequent decision of that government. I emphasize that Parliament never approved those spending plans. It was dissolved on March 26 before approving interim supply. Consequently, government operations have been funded through the authority of special Governor General warrants.
This government, in addition to developing our own spending plans in some detail, had to decide on the most responsible method for obtaining parliamentary authority for the funds required to keep the government operating in the current year. One alternative was to develop, print and table in Parliament a completely new set of estimates and to throw the previous blue book away. We are a government of restraint and to have done that would have clearly been a very expensive and time-consuming exercise. The time required was much better spent, in our opinion, on developing the means and on beginning to make the necessary decisions as to how to restrict and redirect spending in 1979-80 and future years.
Consequently we chose the other alternative. We chose to table the estimates in the same form as the previous government. This enabled government operations to proceed as smoothly as possible, avoided the unnecessary cost of printing a revised book, and gave us time to begin to initiate action to control spending. However, I tabled the estimates with the clear understanding that they do not, in isolation, represent precisely how this government plans to spend public funds. The government does not intend to utilize every authority in the estimates to the precise level indicated in the estimates. We will in fact be revising the spending plans represented by the estimates by freezing some funds to be approved in the estimates and will either let those funds lapse or seek parliamentary authority through supplementary estimates for alternative spending.
Hon. members are well aware of some actions already taken by the government to alter the spending plan represented by the estimates. The level of authorized person years for 197980, for which salary and other funds are included in the estimates, has been reduced by about 2 per cent, with a targeted total reduction of 5,000 person years. The associated funds in the estimates will be frozen. A moratorium on all discretionary spending was imposed on departments and agencies from June 8 to October 15. This will result in more funds in the estimates lapsing unspent at the end of the year or being available to offset new spending requirements more consistent with the priorities of this government, as may be approved by Parliament in supplementary estimates.
So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that under the very difficult circumstances imposed by the fact that no estimates were approved before the fiscal year began, the government has chosen the most responsible way of obtaining parliamentary authority for the expenditure of public funds.
October 19, 1979

The technical matter on the tabling of estimates raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) draws attention to a very serious issue which 1 believe it is my responsibility to ensure is fully understood by this House. That issue, Mr. Speaker, is the very adequacy and validity of the over-all spending plan for 1979-80 announced by the previous government when the estimates were tabled last February. At that time the previous government assured this House that the ceiling on total outlays of the government would be $52.6 billion. "Outlays", which was the word they used, included all budgetary expenditures as well as government loans, investments and advances.
I believe there are two very serious criticisms of the plan presented to Parliament, Mr. Speaker. First, it was not an adequate disclosure and proper representation of real spending by the federal government. Second, even if one were to ignore for a moment the very limited range of government activity to which the so-called "outlays" figure applies, the $52.6 billion ceiling was not at all a realisitic figure in light of subsequent actions of that government and the economic situation that they knew to exist.
I would like to deal first with the issue of disclosure. There are three main shortcomings in the previous government's spending plan with respect to the need for full disclosure to Parliament. First, there was absolutely no indication of the level or nature of so-called "tax expenditures". These are provisions in the tax system which result in loss of revenue to the government; for example, the child tax credit and capital cost allowances for businesses. They may be just as important as direct government spending in determining the over-all level and effectiveness of government action in a given policy area. Without some effort by the government at disclosing tax expenditures, the provisions themselves are unlikely to be publicly debated and re-evaluated and it is impossible to assess the true level and effectiveness of government financial involvement.
In this connection, if time would permit, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the statement made in this House by the then president of the Treasury Board to show how unfair was that statement last February when he initially tabled his main estimates. But let me go on.
My second point is that the previous government did not relate to its $52.6 billion spending plan borrowing by some Crown corporations with the implied guarantee of the government. Under the authority of their governing legislation, some Crown corporations, such as the Export Development Corporation, may borrow funds on the private market rather than from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These private sector borrowings still represent a contingent liability of the Government of Canada in the order of several billion dollars which are not shown in the estimates or included in "outlays" as defined by the former government.
The third shortcoming of the former government's plan with respect to Parliament's need for full disclosure is related to
The Address-Mr. Stevens
accounting practices. Over a period of many years certain government expenditures were recorded as loans, investments and advances and, therefore, as assets on the books of Canada, when in fact no realizable asset had been created. The result was to distort the apparent net debt of the country.
With respect to the first two items, tax expenditures and off-budget financing, I am not suggesting that they are necessarily inappropriate or improper. Indeed, in many cases they may be thoroughly justified. What 1 am suggesting is that the government has a responsibility to make every effort to ensure that government activities of this type are fully disclosed to Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that as the current President of the Treasury Board they will be disclosed from my office in future. If they were not to be disclosed. Parliament could no longer properly evaluate the government's performance or the true Financial impact of government policy.
I say this in full recognition of the fact that, for example, there are some very difficult problems in defining and measuring tax expenditures.
But that is no excuse for doing nothing. In the United States, tax expenditure figures have been published as required by the congressional budget act since 1976. Why should we in Canada say it is impossible? This government has every intention of developing the means of making the maximum diclosure of tax expenditures and obligations created by certain Crown corporation borrowing in association with the direct expenditure plan.
The actions of the former government provide a perfect example of the difficulty of assessing government actions in the absence of such information. They tabled their $52.6 billion spending plan as a model of restraint because of the 8.9 per cent increase it showed over the spending total of the previous year. In the process, however, they had converted certain outlays into tax expenditures for 1979-80. The conversion of child benefits to tax credits with reduced family allowance payments artificially reduced the year to year growth rate in spending as defined by "outlays" because it cost about $650 million in lost revenue.
With respect to accounting practices, the government has already taken action by way of a bill, which received first reading today, to adjust the accounts of Canada. That bill contains clauses which, if passed, will correct several accounting issues and, in particular, two outstanding anomalies which have been contained in estimates of prior years. The first concerns the account known as the airports revolving fund, which at last count amounted to about $650 million and covered the operating and capital expenditures of no fewer than 22 of our national airports, despite which it is classified within the non-budgetary section of the annual estimates presentation. 1 have spoken about this matter before, Mr. Speaker, and I am happy to say that in the future such expenditures will be classified as budgetary in the same way as similar expenditures which are made under the air transportation program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Stevens


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At the time this matter came up last March, Your Honour will recall that we, then in opposition, took great exception to some of the steps which were being taken between March 31 last year and April 1 this year. At that time 1 said the present administration was misrepresenting the financial position of the Government of Canada in a desperate attempt to camouflage the actual trends of federal spending and the deficit. Were it not for the fact that taxpayers' money was involved, I went on to say, the bizarre accounting practices of the administration would be worthy of an April Fool's Day joke; but there was nothing funny about what amounts to a loss of $650 million. 1 pointed out that, in effect, the government had put the loan into what it called suspension; they did not want to write it off. 1 make it clear that they did not want to write it off because, if they did, they could no longer show the figure they wished to show in relation to restraint.
I went on to point out that the date of the suspension of the loan is significant-April 1, the start of the new federal fiscal year. This meant that the procedure would not appear in the federal accounts for some time and would probably not be criticized by the Auditor General until the fiscal 1980 report was released in the fall of the subsequent year. Real restraint in federal spending, 1 said at that time, would not be achieved by wizardry in accounting. I added;
As long as government prefers restraint on paper to restraint in fact, none of the tough decisions on real spending restraint can be taken. Until those decisions are taken, Canada will drift ever closer to economic chaos and national bankruptcy.
On taking over as President of the Treasury Board, I found that what I had indicated as critic at that time was exactly what had transpired. Imagine the absolute audacity of the opposition House leader standing up and asking me whether, as President of the Treasury Board, 1 now approve of those estimates, which included the April 1 wizardry to which 1 have just referred!
The second situation which the bill to which I have referred will correct is the manner in which the government's share of the unemployment insurance program has been presented each year in the estimates. Although this has been shown quite properly as a budgetary expenditure, it has always been shown in arrears, the amount in the estimates representing the government's cost only up to the end of the last calendar year. To correct this anomaly and place this account on a current fiscal year basis will require an adjustment in the accounts of Canada in the order of $2.7 billion. That, Mr. Speaker, is what the House should be aware of with respect to the lack of disclosure in the previous government's spending plans.
My second major criticism is that the ceiling of $52.6 billion which the government did place on the narrowly defined outlays portion of its activity was completely unrealistic given its subsequent actions and the economic situation. The $52.6 billion total included main estimates plus $1.35 billion in reserves. When we first had a look at the books after the election, almost exactly one half of those reserves was exhausted. That was $670 million gone in the first two months of the year. More than $115 million of the expenditure cuts announced the previous August had been reinstated after the

estimates were tabled. The figures published in estimates for some programs, such as equalization, were dependent on passage of legislation which to this date has never been passed. Additional costs of several hundred million dollars will result if this legislation cannot be passed this year, and even now we sense that the present opposition is obstructing the progress of this House.


Mr. Rae:: Give us a bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There had been very large overruns in some existing programs, such as payments to VIA Rail, and some decisions had been taken, such as enrichment of the Canadian home insulation program, which would cause charges against reserves at a later date. CHIP alone will cost at least $100 million more than what was shown in the estimates tabled in this House last February. Some non-discretionary increases in major statutory programs had occurred, but the majority of the charges against the reserves had been of a discretionary nature.
That left this government in an untenable position. After two months into the year only half the reserves within the $52.6 billion ceiling were left, and the really major cost increases, such as the oil import compensation program due to huge OPEC price increases, still had to be accommodated somehow.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties experienced with the tabling of estimates result from the inadequate and unrealistic nature of the spending plan announced by the previous government. That plan did not provide adequate information to Parliament. It also included a figure for total outlays which is unrealistic in light of subsequent action by that government in the economic circumstances.
Nevertheless, 1 am recommending, as I have said, that the House approve the authorities reflected in these estimates, because we have concluded that it is the best means of ensuring an orderly transition to the spending plans of the new government without undue interruption of public services and government operations.
What 1 wish to make clear, however, is that I am not assuming responsibility for the expenditure policies of the previous government which gave rise to the need for these funds to be provided by the House. The policies of this government will be reflected in future supplementary estimates and in new legislation, such as the bill covering adjustments to the accounts of Canada and the forthcoming Crown corporations bill. In addition, as we know, shortly there will be a budget brought in by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie).
In short, it is a long, tangled story which I know the previous government, now the official opposition, only wish could be dropped or obliterated from the records of Canada.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my first speech in the House of Commons
October 19, 1979

on a personal note by dedicating my words to the memory of my youngest brother, Robert James Blaikie, who worked very hard on the Winnipeg-Birds Hill NDP sign crew during the spring election campaign but who did not live to see me take my seat in this House because he was struck down by a truck, through no fault of his own, while riding his motorcycle home from the beach last summer.
But, more importantly, in the final analysis it is to the future of all the little brothers and sisters of the world, born and yet to be born, that 1 wish to address my remarks this afternoon. Those who survive may yet be the unlucky ones.
1 understand the tradition of Parliament to be that 1 should initially say something about the riding which I represent, and this I am glad to do. The riding of Winnipeg-Birds Hill is a new riding comprising in part the southern and urban portion of the old federal riding of Selkirk and the town of Transcona, formerly a part of the federal riding of St. Boniface. 1 come from Transcona, 1 am the first person born and raised in Transcona to sit in this House, and for that privilege I thank all the people of Winnipeg-Birds Hill who supported me on May 22 as well as those in Winnipeg-Birds Hill who worked so hard during the election compaign for the NDP.
Winnipeg-Birds Hill is a fairly large and fairly typical urban area throughout most of its parts, with the exception of its northern edge, which is still, and hopefully will continue to be, given over to market gardening and a more rural lifestyle. It is a riding of hardworking people who are paying the bill for this country while corporations and those who run them hide from giving their fair share through perceiving tax loopholes and tax shelters as an opportunity for virtue rather than as the temptation to vice which they in fact are.
The largest single employer in Winnipeg-Birds Hill is the largest single employer in all of Winnipeg, and that is Canadian National Railways, at whose Transcona main repair shops and Symington Yard work many of the people of Winnipeg-Birds Hill. 1 worked there myself as a labourer during summers-and sometimes during the winters as well-while going to university from 1969 to 1974.
It has often been thought and, more recently, said by those who lack foresight and/or by those who have a vested financial interest in highways and related industries that the railroad is on its way out, particularly passenger rail. How anything like that could be said in full knowledge of the energy crisis and in full knowledge of the complete and total supremacy of rail transport over highway transport when it comes to concern about energy is beyond me.
Let me serve notice that any government which wishes to convince me and my constituents in Winnipeg-Birds Hill that it is serious about energy conservation will have to show the wisdom to invest large amounts of money in the modernization and marketing of rail transport in Canada. Nevertheless, one can only be pessimistic about this in view of this government's conceptual inability to distinguish between short-term government spending and long-term government investment, which produces assets and the economic infrastructure which benefits generations to come. No greater example of this kind of
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
conceptual blindness could have been given to us this afternoon than the speech made by the previous speaker.
With respect to passenger rail in particular, this government ought to seek changes in the situation of VIA Rail, the institution set up by the former Liberal government. It appears to preside over the disappearance rather than the revival of passenger rail in Canada. Between old equipment, infrequent service to many areas and collaboration to keep the price of bus travel below the price of passenger rail, there is little to be optimistic about in this area of concern. Just the other day the announcement of the decision to have passengers change trains in Winnipeg late at night could hardly be interpreted as anything but an attack on passenger rail in this country.
The distinction between the short-term and inadequate conceptual framework of this government concerning spending and a longer term, more substantial political vision brings me to the point in my speech where I wish to speak on a broader philosophical level about how this government and the world view which it represents is leading us down the road to destruction. Fundamentally, of course, it is the same road down which the previous government was leading us. The difference is that the former government was leading us there out of cowardice and out of fear to stand up and say that this is the wrong road, whereas this government will lead us there with zeal and a naivete about the world which would be laughable if it were not so tragic. It is hard to know which government is the more to be pitied.
Allow me to elaborate on the error of the direction in which this government so proudly and self-righteously is leading the Canadian people. For many years now, indeed for those centuries that have passed since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the western world, particularly North America, has been guided more or less by what is properly known as Liberal economic doctrine, or the doctrine of the marketplace, as the final adjudicator of what will happen for the good and what will not.
Under this system, there is no question that there has been an incredible increase in the material well-being of a large portion of the world, and thus the accolades for free enterprise that we so often hear from members across the way, not to mention members to the right of our caucus-and, make no mistake, they are where they belong, to the right of us, despite the last minute and hypocritical moans of compassion for the oppressed that we have been treated to this last week or so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: But this economic growth that the champions of free enterprise are so fond of citing did not happen in a vacuum. It happened at the same time as whole new continents were conquered by the west and technologies improved and developed for the extraction, refinement and secondary manufacturing of resources.
All this growth was had at great cost in human life and
basic human justice. Formerly independent countries were

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
subjected to colonial rule; aboriginal peoples and their cultures were held in contempt and destroyed; traditional and renewable resource economics were dislocated for the profit of the powerful, and many within the powerful industrial nations themselves were reduced to starvation and the slavery of necessity as they streamed into the factories to try to eke out a living.
This was capitalism at its worse, the kind of capitalism we have now exported to the Third World. At home, however, the development of unions at no small cost in human suffering, the development of orderly marketing in some areas, either through government control or private sector monopoly, and the development of government regulation and government ownership for the public interest, have blunted the effects of raw competition and profit seeking.
At the same time, we have seen the development of large multinational corporations whose power overshawdows that of most nations of the world and who are able to blackmail and ruin national economies at will. We have seen the slowing down of the western world economically as we come to the limits of our ability to dominate the planet, not just for economic reasons, but also for environmental and physical reasons as pollution increases and resources are depleted. We have been able to observe that, in spite of all the wind which passes on the other side about opportunity and progress, hundreds of thousands of Canadians live without work, without a decent standard of living, without hope for a better life. Finally, at the same time we have seen a gradual erosion of community life, of family life and of meaning. Life is meaningless for so many people. We produce and consume, we keep the economy going, we are told to be good consumers. We exist for the sake of the economy. I am reminded of Tommy Douglas' excellent interpretation of the biblical teaching that the economy is made for man, not the man for economy.
This short historical sketch raises three questions: the question of power, that of limit, and that of meaning. All of them are related to the future.
On the question of power, it is customary to hear conversations about big government, big business, and big labour, with much emphasis on increasing power of government. I am no promoter of bureaucracy but when it comes to a choice between big government and big business-because in this country there is no such thing as big labour-let me say why I come down on the side of government. It is not a question of bigness versus smallness, or government versus the individual. All this talk about the individual and individual freedom as justification for letting large corporations do what they want is evidence of complete blindness to reality on the part of some and of cheap political jingoism on the part of others. One would like to think that it is the leaders who are the jingoists and the followers who are the dupes, but listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) one suspects it is the other way around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Corporations are not individuals by any twist of the imagination, and for that matter individuals are not

individuals in the way we usually hear this word used by Liberals and Conservatives. We have our being in relation to others and we try to be rugged individuals at our peril and to the peril of the world.
I was talking about power, Mr. Speaker. Power must be made accountable, and if the choice is not between big and small but rather who is going to be big until we can decentralize our lives a bit more through the development of technologies which require less centralization, then, given this choice, 1 say that there must be more government involvement, not less. So long as we continue to have and continue to improve the democratic nature of governments so that power is more and more accountable, this will be a good thing, not a bad thing.
The alternative to this reallocation of power so as to make it more accountable to the democratic process is to continue to let very important decisions be made privately according to the criteria of maximum profit instead of public justice and survival of the human prospect. The talk on the other side about returning control to individual Canadians through privatization is a farce, a false description of the reality of allowing a few Canadians, and even more non-Canadians, through foreign ownership, to control the rest of us, those of us who cannot afford to pretend that we control something by owning even a few shares in a corporation, and for that matter may not be interested in earning a living through investment but rather through hard work in the productive or service sector of our society.
Power is to be mistrusted because it can be, and mostly is, corrupted by the vanity of human kind, expressed in control, and by a selfishness of human kind expressed through exploitation. So even the power of democratic governments must be held in constant check by a vigilant and informed citizenry. 1 have no illusions about the negative aspect of government, but, nonetheless, government is a more appropriate avenue of accountability than the vain hope that corporations, imprisoned as they are by the structures of profit maximization and protected by governments which think it their responsibility to give them a free hand, can ever really act substantially and in a prolonged way for the benefit of all, and particularly of those who inhabit the future.
Next to the question of power there is the question of limit, or of realizing the limits within which we act as humans in a finite universe which exists not just for our sake but for its own sake, something declared to be valuable by the creator, independent of human existence. For too long our relationship to nature has been one of domination, of viewing it as merely an instrument of our own self-interest. This has been true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all major western ideological streams, including the democratic socialist tradition. On this account, we are all in need of repentance. But this error has been compounded in many so-called advanced countries by the addition of competitive economics to the tragedy.
So we have seen the following, Mr. Speaker. Valuable resources have been depleted for no other reason than that it was profitable to sell them as fast as could be to as many as could be. When I think of all the gas and oil that would yet be
October 19, 1979

available for important uses and for future development of underdeveloped as opposed to overdeveloped areas, I get sick with anger in the knowledge that this was done for no other reason than to increase the global profit margins of a few large corporations, which then had the nerve to pay little or no tax to societies whose future they so endanger.
When I think of depleted fish stocks, of soil paved over or spoiled by overfertilization for short-term yields, or of all the valuable forest that goes into packaging and bagging hamburgers that are already wrapped, all for the sake of what is innocently called marketing, I become fearful at just what kind of judgment history reserves for such a society.
Then there is the problem of pollution, that other great hallmark of the system with which members opposite are so fascinated. River after river-the English-Wabigoon river system, for instance-lake after lake-Lake Erie is the first thing that comes to mind-and place after place-one can hardly help thinking of the Sudbury basin-fouled by the great benefactors of mankind who, for all their user-pay rhetoric, when it comes to health care and other human rights have been consistently unwilling to pay the full cost of their economic activities.
The full environmental, not to mention social, costs of traditional economic development are enormous, and we have just begun to pay them. Indeed, the sons will have to pay for the sins of the fathers. Let the corporate sector bear the full cost of their activities, and let them be silent for once on the government spending required to remedy their social and environmental sins. The gleam in their own eye is so big that they are tripping over themselves with self-righteous blindness.
We live in a finite universe. What this means, among other things, is that if we continue to remain committed to an economic system which requires infinite growth to be healthy, then we are committed to a logical fallacy in theory and disaster in practice. What is worse is that this government would have us uncritically rededicate ourselves to this undesirable end, when I can think of a no more fundamentally wrong direction in which to go. Rather, we must learn to seek ways of organizing our economic life so that we do not have to grow all the time, so that everyone has enough, and so that social and environmental considerations may be given priority-a planned economy. The CCF called for it in 1933, and the need for it is relevant today in ways that J. S. Woodsworth probably could not have imagined.
Economic growth is not the solution to things that it is thought to be, both because it does not guarantee justice and because it does not fulfil the need for meaning in life. I do not say this self-righteously. I am conscious of the fact that governments of the left have not always been environmentally responsible, and that they too have been too uncritical of economic growth. What I do submit is that these errors are not inherent, are not built into the very concept of society which, for instance, we in the New Democratic Party advocate. We have the conceptual tools, and I believe also the character, to
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
face up to these problems of limit because we are not bound within the ideological prison that members opposite find themselves in, which I submit makes them enemies of the future whether they know it or not, and for the sharper among them, whether they like it or not.
The question of meaning is the third problem which I raise concerning the direction in which this government would lead us. It is the most ironic problem of all three. As I listened over the last eight days to the speeches of the members opposite, the conviction grew in me that these men and women are their own worst enemies. They lament and they wail about the erosion of values, of hard work, of family ties, of community consciousness, of duty, and somehow imagine that this is the result of a socialist plot. It is their world view that has been running the world for the last few centuries, not ours. It is their world view that has been running the country since its inception, not ours. The failure of the system to hold the community together is their failure and no one else's. It is their failure because the one value they hold above all others is the value of economic freedom, the freedom to make a buck wherever and whenever one can and the corresponding emphasis on material wealth as the measure of a person's worth, and indeed the measure of a country's worth. It is this very value inculcated from day one, and reinforced over and over again by advertising and by Tory pamphlets, that is eating away at all the other things they hold dear.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), who is not present today, spoke last week quite eloquently about the disappearance of good agricultural land. Yet if asked to support land use planning, even if it went against the economic freedom of land developers, my money is on the prediction that he would back down. It is not socialists who have allowed the haphazard and unplanned development of our urban areas to happen; it is city councils all over this country of the same mentality as this government. Winnipeg city council is one of the worst examples of a so-called non-partisan government whose allegiance to developers knows no shame.
I have heard members opposite lament the destruction of community spirit. The Prime Minister in particular likes to go on about the value of small community life. I ask them: Who is destroying the family farm and small businesses all over this country? Not the socialists but the economics of growing multinational control, of agribusiness, and of chain stores. It was NDP provincial governments which tried through stay-options and land lease programs to maintain rural life in Canada. We are the true conservatives. We are the ones who would intervene to conserve what is valuable and good about Canadian life, rather than abandoning it to the whim and self-interest of the economically powerful in the name of this specious freedom which serves no one but the powerful themselves.
What we have before us are a sort of primitive nineteenth century classical Liberals who represent the latest revolt of the powerful against what little progress in social justice has been accomplished already. As for the Liberal party, an attempt to locate it ideologically would require that one have in one's

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
hand the latest Gallup poll. Pragmatism is the name given to the ideology of the Liberals. Pragmatism is the name given to this lack of principle and power, and power only is the name of the ideology that the Liberal party has, in spite of its hypocritical criticisms of the government and the NDP for being ideological. It is impossible not to have an ideology. Theirs is the most despicable of all because they refuse to admit it, lest they would have to defend it, of course.
Human life cannot much longer bear the suffering which Adam Smith's invisible hand, indeed non-existent hand, has visited upon the world until now, and the disaster that it will visit upon the world should it continue to be mistakenly perceived to be there. It is clearly not the case that the best interests of all are served by allowing and encouraging everyone as individuals to pursue their own self-interest. This would be to build a house on sand, a house that will blow over as the strong winds of economic reality blow on it and various individuals, groups, or provinces scramble to protect their share of a shrinking pie, a scramble that is called "good business" when engaged in by the powerful and called "living beyond our means" when engaged in by the powerless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I must confess a certain sympathy for the latter category because it is my belief that when there is scarcity, it is immoral for those who are well off to decide that their standard of living is the one thing which must be protected above all else and restraint imposed on everyone else. This is the time when the commitment of the Canadian establishment to social justice is being tested and found wanting.
We must build our country not out of dreams of riches, of opening up new frontiers and all the other stuff the Prime Minister likes to go on about, but on the rock of human community expressed in the equal sharing of our country's wealth with each other and with the world. We must build it on the rock of respect for the non-human environment and the future, expressed in an economic system which does not demand growth yet which permits appropriate growth in underdeveloped areas. We must build it on the rock of democratic accountability of power, so that important decisions affecting society and its future are made in the public rather than the private sector. Only in this way will we be able to negotiate a future which we can look forward to.
In other words, to quote W. H. Auden, "We must love one another or die . The world is too small now and human actions too significant and powerful to be placed at the disposal of the marketplace and the values it represents. We have a crisis of values, but it is not the crisis that members opposite think it is.
It is not only that we have seen the erosion of traditional values; we have at least one traditional value, the value placed on our economic system, which has led to the present crisis. The sooner it is dumped, the sooner we will be able to restore and refurbish those values, the passing of which is appropriately lamented.
We must love one another or die, not just through charity or the new routine platitudes of Conservatives about the volun-

tary sector in social services, but as the very structures of our economy, our politics, and life together as a people among other peoples comes to reflect the theological truth that, whether it fits our ideological fantasies or not, we are brothers and sisters, children of the same God who intended that we live in fellowship rather than in competition with each other, and in fellowship with Him and creation.
We have before us in this century, and particularly at this juncture, the choice between life and death, between love and continued separation from each other. We have chosen death so many times before. How long before our choices are irreversible, before we gain the whole world and lose our souls?
I have heard members opposite disparage comments like mine as so much doom crying and lack of confidence in the Canadian people. But my idea of responsible leadership is not to be a cheerleader. I am reminded of the distinction between false prophecy and true prophecy which we find in the dispute between Jeremiah and Hananiah in the Book of Jeremiah. Those who prophesy peace, who would heal the wounds of the people lightly, who are afraid to be anything but optimistic and superficial, are not to be trusted. They would save us not by repentance or change, but by more of the same.
We must amend our ways and our doings. There is no salvation in pious phrases about reduction in government spending. It is to the amending of our ways and our doings that my work in this Parliament will be directed. Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 would rise-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Benno Friesen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I realize that this is the hon. member's maiden speech and I do not want to disrupt protocol, but I wonder if he would entertain a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member ready to entertain a question?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Sure; why not?


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for permitting me to ask a question. He has made some really quite broad statements about the guilt that the market system ought to bear for the destruction, as he describes it, of our way of life and our system. I agree that the market system has to share some of that guilt, but I would ask him if maybe the clergy should not share some of that guilt too?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I could not say everything in 30 minutes, but had I had the opportunity of commenting on the inadequacy of the clergy I would have required another 30, especially the church corporately, Mr. Speaker, for the way in which it has been an uncritical ally of our economic system for

October 19, 1979

so many years. There are many in the church who have much to be repentant about, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the way in which they have thought it their religious duty to protect the interests of the powerful, but I would agree with what I think the hon. member is implying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) perhaps the House will allow me to invite the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) to read Citation 333 of Beauchesne's fifth edition which prohibits members from having any kind of exhibits in the House. It states in part:
Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber.
1 could carry on reading the citation but I invite the hon. member to look at it, and perhaps even refer to the House of Commons Debates of June 16, 1969, at page 10,156. I would ask that the hon. member remove the nice mascot he has on his desk from the House.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker I am, of course, most willing to comply with your ruling, but I was finding this mascot of the football game that is to be played this weekend between Ottawa and Carleton Universities a little bit more bearable than some of the rantings of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, this first opportunity I have to participate in a debate in the Thirty-first Parliament is for me a pleasure and a great honour. At the outset, I would like to congratulate the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the seconder of the motion. They showed eloquence and competence in expressing the views of their fellow citizens who have elected them to the House. I would say that indeed I appreciated the message from the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), a member from Prince Edward Island, my neighbouring province. I must say that his compassion, his humanity and his approach to politics make of him a worthy successor to the former member for Cardigan, the minister of veterans affairs, whose attitude, approach to politics, compassion, and sense of humanity were hard to equal. 1 have always been impressed with the simplicity of his approach to problems and also with his compassion for and his readiness to help the ordinary people. The hon. member for Cardigan then is right to keep this approach in politics.
1 want of course to pay my respects to His Excellency the Governor General and his wife, and to thank him for delivering the Speech from the Throne on October 9. I want to congratulate all the new members who have been elected to this House for the first time, and I notice that many of them are very eloquent and speak very well. 1 want to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) on his
The Address-Mr. Breau
eloquence. For the moment that is all I want to congratulate him on, but on another occasion after his maiden speech perhaps we will have the opportunity to consider the substance in a little more critical and detailed way.
Mr. Speaker, after four and a half months of this Progressive Conservative government, we are beginning to see what really is this party's philosophy. One could say that after four and a half months there was not much to be learned in the throne speech. There was not much in the speeches made in the House, or in the speech by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) this afternoon, to indicate that those people have the courage of their convictions, and would dare do as they preach. But we are beginning to see that some of them are using the power they have temporarily acquired, even if only through 36 per cent of the votes and, pursuant to the mandate they have received by this slim margin, they want to govern without showing up in the House of Commons. It took them four and a half months to gather their courage and meet the House of Commons. Now, after secret studies and discussions, they want to change radically not only the economy but the whole political and social structure of this country. I shall come back later to what the President of the Treasury Board has said because I have a few things to say about him, particularly the restraining influence he has on some hon. members opposite who are now ministers and who, 1 know, are compassionate men who wish the Government of Canada would do more for the Canadian people. 1 shall come back to this point later on.
However, one thing strikes me and it is that we have in Canada some well organized, well ordered and well financed forces which are endeavouring to destroy Canada, while the government in the Speech from the Throne does not mention the situation in Quebec which the country faces. There is absolutely nothing. 1 merely want to add, Mr. Speaker, that for a Francophone, an Acadian who sees, understands and reads every day what is happening in Quebec, the kind of campaign led by members opposite who constantly complained-


Mr.   La Salle@: You are the ones who complained.


Herb Breau: I will come back to the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) in a little while. He can take his time and quiet down.
Mr. Speaker, when we realize that a systematic organization is trying to destroy Canada, is the federal government not brave enough or does it not know how to stop what is going on there? And yet, Mr. Speaker, it is not because the government does not want to tackle the constitutional issue, because ministers speak about it. They spoke about it in veiled terms because they did not want to do it openly, but they wanted to criticize our leader and suggest that we saw only one aspect, the Canadian policy. However, when we speak about rights to offshore resources, are we not referring to the constitutional
422

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Breau
issue? It has been stated that British Columbia and Newfoundland will obtain the ownership and not only the profits, because the previous government wanted to leave most profits from offshore resources to British Columbia and the Maritime provinces.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) refers to jurisdiction and ownership. Are these not constitutional issues? But the question of the language rights of minorities is hushed up. As the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister made a speech last year in Montreal in which he set a high value on section 133 of the constitution which guarantees the language rights of Quebec Anglophones, all the while without saying a word of the need and desire of Francophone minorities to have their rights enshrined in the constitution. A Speech from the Throne-
Mir. La Salle: You had 16 years to do so.


Herb Breau: Yes, my friend, we had 16 years to do so, but we had to deal with the systematic opposition not only of those of you who were sitting in the House, but also of some progressive provinces. And if the hon. member for Joliette thinks it is a bad thing, let him take the time to discuss it with the Premier of New Brunswick who is of the opinion that we should have a strong central government, and that language rights should be enshrined in the constitution.


Mr.   La Salle@: With the provinces!


Herb Breau: Yes, with the provinces. So why does the hon. member not suggest that? When the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition, he did go to the trouble of making speeches on the matter. In Montreal, in his speech he insisted especially on the rights of Anglophones in Quebec. So, we took note of that. The Anglophones in Quebec should have rights. If we want the constitution to be a success, that might not be necessary today. But if language rights were guaranteed the Francophones in the constitution, it would constitute a symbol of justice and equality, it would help those among us, and 1 hope, across the way, who would have Canada maintained as it is. It would help us to go to those who want to break up Canada and tell them, "Listen, Canada can restore the imbalance; justice and equality can be achieved in Canada not only in principle, not only in its symbols, but also in fact."
So, I should have liked the government to have had the courage, at a time when Canada is almost breaking apart, to deal with that matter. To my mind the government will be sorry it did not over the long term. The hon. member for Joliette, the Minister of Supply and Services, may perhaps have the opportunity to explain the matter and reassure the Canadian people and the House by telling them that the position of the government has nothing to do, for instance, with the rather close relationship it has had with the PQs in the past and may still be trying to develop.


Mr.   La Salle@: I got the information in the report of the Pepin-Robarts Commission.


Herb Breau: Then, Mr. Speaker, the member for Joliette will have the opportunity to explain it so as to dispel all fears.
Let me come back to the question of political philosophy. The Conservative party philosophy on the economy was so well expressed by Dr. Gillies, a former distinguished member of this House, not long ago when he said that the best government is less government. That party suggests, and we heard the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) propagating this stand again today, that if the intervention of government in the economy and society, if government spending and borrowing is reduced, it will create some slack which will be picked up by the private sector.
It has been only four and a half months since the Tory administration began, and already we have seen the total failure of that philosophy. Did General Motors come to Quebec? General Motors approached the former government for assistance, and they have approached this government for assistance.
[ Translation]


Mr.   La Salle@: You tried to get it during ten months.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Joliette will have time enough to speak about it. He should act like a minister and calm down. He is no longer in opposition.

When the private sector is left on its own there is no assurance that there will be the kind of economic development policy which is necessary for the country. The fact that GM is opting out of a major investment in Quebec is a sign already of the total failure of that government's philosophy with regard to the economy.
I see that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) is in the House. Have we seen any banks running to finance fishing vessels in the last four months? Have we seen any banks running to finance wharves? The minister has been told by the President of the Treasury Board, and once again in public today, that the discretionary spending of his department is frozen until October 15. The result is that not one fishing vessel subsidy has been approved since June 1, the last date the former minister had the authority to do so. Not one cent has been awarded in New Brunswick for the construction, expansion, or even the major repair of wharves. Yet do we see the private sector running to finance these services, these basic and fundamental investments which are needed for the fishing industry?
I have told the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans before in this House, and he is a man of great compassion, what the Tory party would do once it became the government, and that was that the Bay Street philosophy would be the source of their policies. Already the minister has been put down by the
October 19, 1979

President of the Treasury Board and been told, "look, all these things you want for the fisheries and the Atlantic provinces are not important. We have to put this economy in order so that the people on Bay Street can read and see it in their terms". 1 warned the Minister of Fisheries that this would happen, and now we are seeing it in practice.
The Minister of Fisheries is not even in the inner cabinet. This is very downgrading for a member who, for months in 1971, stood in this Flouse and argued for a separate Department of Fisheries. The former government established a separate fisheries department, but now it is not even represented in the inner cabinet. It must be very humiliating for the minister, a man of such compassion and a champion for the little man, to bear the fact that he is not a member of the inner cabinet where he could speak for the Fishing industry and the Fishermen in this country.
There is one other thing which has happened in the fisheries which needs to be told.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced on August 27 last that he would raise the cod quotas in two areas of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, namely, areas 4T and 4VN, and recently said in the House that he had been in consultation with the provinces. He said he had been in consultation with an advisory committee on groundfish fisheries in the Atlantic provinces before making that decision. I simply want to say to the minister that he has not finished answering questions on that. He has not finished explaining what happened at the July 10 meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, with the advisory committee, tabling the minutes of those meetings, explaining why a subcommittee was set up at that meeting, and so on.
1 am sure the minister in his answer did not want to ignore the situation, because he is certainly not a member who is devious and who would not want to give a complete answer. 1 do not doubt that, but he said there had been consultations with the provinces on higher quotas, the minister cleverly omitted to say whether or not there had been consultations on the issue of allowing boats 100 feet or more to enter the Gulf. The minister has not Finished answering questions on that and he will have to answer this fundamental question involving long term policies as well a long term approach on the development of fisheries for all eastern Canada which is going to determine whether provinces located more than 200 miles away like Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the Gaspe area in the province of Quebec, are going to be able to benefit from that new 200-mile zone.
That long-term approach is very important, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not answer whether there had been consultations with provincial governments on that issue, and the minister is going to have to answer it because, Mr. Speaker, that is the most unfair situation one can imagine. The minister may have acted somewhat hastily because he was only recently
The Address-Mr. Breau
appointed a minister, so I give him the beneFit of the doubt on this.
Mr. Speaker, the minister must know that the large fishing companies always tried to manipulate the groundfish advisory committee. Companies such as National Sea Products, Nickerson and two or three other fishing "tycoons" always fought the previous minister, my colleague from Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc), not only on his actions but on his long-term philosophies. They always fought him. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a national advertising campaign to fight the policies of the previous minister and the previous government, who were saying that in quota allocations a regional component would be included for the first time to ensure that people in New Brunswick, the Gaspe Peninsula and Prince Edward Island, the independent fishermen with the smallest boats would have an opportunity to catch the fish that will be there thanks to better stock management and the 200-mile limit. Because it is crystal clear that the big companies that have money, that use large boats can go near the coast and anywhere where they can invest $1 million, $2 million or $3 million in 100-foot, 200-foot or even 300-foot boats. They can catch all the Fish there is in a matter of weeks. The fundamental question was this: are we going to let this happen? Are we going to let go down the drain the policies of the future, the fishing licences of the future, to quotas of the future? All of a sudden the minister, who has been there two and a half months, gives something to those big companies. As 1 told him personally, as a new minister I give him the benefit of the doubt. But, Mr. Speaker, to the forces that have been well represented in his party for two or three years, to the forces that always opposed that policy that is fundamentally just and fair to the independent fishermen, those who cannot borrow $1 million from the bank, to those forces I say: your Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is already perceived as someone who sings to the tune of the big companies. This is how he is perceived. 1 hope the minister will have the courage, because it was only on November 1 he allowed large boats 100 feet and over to come into the Gulf, 1 hope he will have the courage to consider this question and ensure that those forces in his party which have always been opposed to the fishing policy supported by my party during its last four years in power, that those forces will not compromise his own principles which, I know, are both humanitarian and compassionate.
Mr. Speaker, I say the same thing to the hon. members for St. John's East, Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and by extension to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), who are active in the community. That is how they got to be elected. I had the opportunity to tell them, during last December's unemployment insurance bill debate, what would happen if their party came to power, what would happen if the hon. member for York-Peel, who is now the President of the Treasury Board, had responsibility for public funds and government policies. And just look at what has happened.

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Breau
Let us look at the mortgage tax credit plan. The only thing I cannot explain to myself is how the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) as Minister of Finance could screw up enough courage to propose such a program so clearly to the advantage of the regions of the country that pay the higher property taxes and the regions of the country where people buy homes traditionally and finance them by a mortgage.
Let us look at the effects on the Atlantic provinces. The province of Newfoundland has 1.84 per cent of all homes in Canada but will have 1.2 per cent of the benefits of that program. The province of New Brunswick has 2.66 per cent of all homes in Canada, and will get 1.7 per cent of the benefits. Ontario, where Bay Street is, 1 remind the member for St. John's East, where the President of the Treasury Board is from, where his party took the support to form a government-and maybe justifiably and I do not want to argue that at this point-Ontario has 36.8 per cent of all homes in Canada and its benefits will be 35.4 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Are those the figures for the Toronto area?


Herb Breau: No, I have not got the figures for the Toronto area. The hon. member for St John's West, when he came into the House, never showed the compassion that the hon. member for St. John's East had, but at least he showed great demagoguery speaking on how he was going to defend Newfoundlanders. One of his first speeches was on the U1C cuts of 1977. He stood in the House and said, "We are going to filibuster this bill; we are going to stop this. It is terrible for Newfoundlanders, it is terrible for maritimers". But when it came down to a vote the hon. member did not show up. 1 would remind the hon. member for St. John's East that he did not show up either. His party at that time could not find a devious way to oppose the bill. It found one last December.
1 just hope that the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for St. John's West can stop the President of the Treasury Board who is chairman, 1 am told, of the economic committee in cabinet under which the UIC review comes. The economic committee of cabinet is chaired by the great member for York-Peel. I hope the hon. member for St. John's East will be able to stop this terrible thing we have heard about, that they are going to come in with a two-tier system which will have the clear effect of penalizing the young people of this country and the women of this country. 1 want to give them all the support 1 can to stop this terrible thing. He is not in the inner cabinet, however, so maybe he will just hear about it down the hall when the inner cabinet has made the decision.
1 moved a motion yesterday or the day before to try to put the minister in charge of DREE in the inner cabinet. His colleagues said no. Next week 1 am going to move a motion to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the inner cabinet.
I think he would be a great countervailing force to that destructor of the country, the President of the Treasury Board.
If that man is allowed to continue with his philosophy he is

going to create economic disaster for the four Atlantic provinces-total economic disaster-


An hon. Member:: For the whole country.


Herb Breau: -for the Atlantic provinces and, I suppose, for the whole country too. I suppose that Bay Street will be able to continue to exist, and that is about all he cares.
The President of the Treasury Board talked about the estimates and said that he did not get another set of estimates printed because it would have cost too much. He said we could not really get that changed in order to give the clear direction of the Tory government, because it would have cost too much to print another set of estimates. The philosophies and the principles of the President of the Treasury Board are not worth a few thousand bucks to have about 1,000 books printed so that this government could express what it wanted to do with the spending programs of the federal government, and so that the House of Commons could have criticized what they wanted to do. I do not buy this garbage that in four and one half months the government could not have a set of estimates printed.
In 1978 the government at the time, when the estimates had already been printed, changed those estimates to reduce government spending and divert funds elsewhere to the tune of $2 billion. Two million dollars were diverted once the estimates had been printed.
The real truth is that the President of the Treasury Board, with his colleagues in the inner cabinet and, I suppose, once in a while the outer cabinet, and once in a while the backbenchers of the Tory party, spent their time worrying about who is going to get the contracts-to make sure that Media Buying Services was going to get all the contracts for the Tory party-make sure that in the case of the Guy Favreau complex in Montreal it was a Conservative engineer that would make the revision. That was important! They have not done anything else during the summer. They could have had another set of estimates printed and have presented it to the House of Commons.
Like the Argentine fiasco where we lost about $2 billion worth of business, and the Alaska oil pipeline presented by the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company Limited, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) answered today and yesterday that the ambassador of Canada had represented Canada's interests on that question. He very cleverly, and in a devious way, said that the Conservative government had informed the United States government about dangers to the environment, but he never talked about the overland Alaska oil line project. He said the ambassador had the job of representing government policy.
Petro-Canada had an interest in that oil line through West-coast Transmission. Did the Canadian ambassador to the United States have a clear policy on Petro-Canada in the past four months? Can anyone stand up and say that? The Canadian ambassador does not represent anything but official government policy or clear messages from the government. There-
October 19, 1979

fore, how could he assure the United States government that the Canadian government was clearly and strongly behind the Alaska oil pipeline overland route?


Walter David Baker: Because he is brighter than you are.


Herb Breau: I agree that he is very bright. He was named by the government when we were in power.
The Prime Minister did not state that the ambassador had communicated to the U.S. government that the Canadian government was behind the overland route. He stated the ambassador had communicated to the U.S. government the concern of the Canadian government about the west coast tanker route. One does not automatically go with the other. You could reduce tanker traffic by not bringing any oil from Alaska. We are asking did he or did he not explain to the U.S. government that we were behind the Alaska gas trunk that Foothills was proposing? He has not answered that.
The President of the Treasury Board demonstrated again today that the government has done just about nothing in those four and a half months because he did not have time or did not think it worth while having another set of estimates printed. What garbage! The President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister said today that we were already obstructing the workings of this House. 1 give the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) notice that whatever bills he places on the order paper will be looked at carefully. That is our duty. When bringing forward appropriations, the President of the Treasury Board will have to explain in great detail, as he had us do when we were in government. He will have to explain why it is he could not have another set of estimates printed if he disagreed with the present ones. It would not have taken long. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) could have found a friendly printer to print another set of estimates.
The Atlantic provinces are being threatened by the approach of this government in reducing government spending and intervention in the economy. We are starting to see the proof of that. We are beginning to see exactly what it is the Tory government is going to do. Apart from the ideology and philosophy of these questions, in a country like Canada you cannot pretend that you are going to represent fully the interests of people across this country by reducing the leverage and manoeuvrability of the federal institution of government in spending. You cannot do that. If you give more power to the provinces, you are giving more power to Ontario-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. 1 regret to advise the hon. member that his time has now expired.


Herb Breau: In view of the agreement today that we would not ask for extended time, 1 will not do that.


Mr. Alex Jupp (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by joining with members on both sides of the House in offering my congratulations to the hon. member for Sudbury
The Address-Mr. Jupp
(Mr. Jerome) on the occasion of his re-election as Speaker of this House.
This might be an appropriate time to bring to the attention of the House a message that was conveyed to me as a new member of Parliament as I met with electors in the longest election campaign in Canadian history. In my case it was a campaign which lasted for 14 months. Indeed, I must express my appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), the former prime minister. It was because of his reluctance to call the election in the spring of 1978 at the end of the normal mandate of the last Parliament that 1 was able to visit so many electors throughout Mississauga North and thus be elected to Parliament. Were the Leader of the Opposition in his seat today, 1 would say to him that had he followed his own instincts and not listened to the bad advice of his bad advisers, I would not be here in this Parliament and he would likely not be on that side of the House.
My message, however, is less one of consoling hindsight to the official opposition than it is to the members on both sides of the House, particularly those who sat in the last Parliament. This institution is not held in high regard by Canadians. Indeed, some view Parliament as the only institution in the country that is run by the inmates themselves. During the division bells last week one young visitor to the House asked his friend what the noise was all about. His friend replied that he did not know, but maybe it was because one of the members escaped!
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I was given the distinct impression, in my months of house to house visiting prior to the official election call, that Canadians question the relevance of much of what goes on in the House. The first issue of Parliamentary Government, a journal which I would commend to all Canadians seriously interested in the integrity of Parliament, addresses the question in an article on "Public Opinion: Why Don't Canadians Trust Their Representatives?" and I quote:
The behaviour of members may appear rowdy, frivolous, and unworthy of the seriousness of the matters under discussion. Where increased public understanding is the goal, there are some doubts about the ability of television to contribute to this understanding under the present broadcasting format.
I do have hope for improvement, Mr. Speaker, because of the decorum of the new members on both sides of this House. My hope is that this Thirty-first Parliament will be seen as a turning point in respect of this House and the great tradition for which it stands. Let us refrain from the catcalls, the posturing, and the irrelevance that have brought disrepute to this great democratic institution, and dedicate our presence to a serious discussion of the public issues.
On this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in tribute to the late Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker. Above all, Mr. Diefenbaker was a man who loved Parliament and the historical traditions for which it stood. We can honour his memory in no greater way than by dedicating ourselves to respecting and preserving those laws, traditions and institutions which history has proven to be the basic ingredients of any lasting progress.

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Jupp
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to be the practice of new members to say a few words about the constituency which sent them to this House. I rather suspect that, with the exception of Ottawa Centre in which the Houses of Parliament are located, more members have visited Mississauga North than any other riding in the country. This is because it is the home of the Toronto international airport. Mississauga North is the second most populous constituency in Canada. It contains the communities of Streetsville, Malton, and Cooksville, which are over a hundred years old, as well as the very new communities of Erin Mills, Meadowvale, Rockwood, and Mississauga Valleys. Its diversity is reflected in the densely populated Dixie-Bloor area, where I reside, while a few miles away abound the pastures of over 100 farms. As well it includes the picturesque communities of Applewood Acres, Applewood Hills, Apple-wood Heights, Fleetwood Village, and the Credit Woodlands.
It is very much a multicultural constituency, comprising citizens of over 80 countries, the majority of whom are of neither Anglo-Saxon nor French origin. I am grateful for the confidence they have placed in me as their representative in this Parliament, and pledge myself to work with you on their behalf to address the serious problems confronting our great country.
I felt compelled to enter public life because of a profound concern for the direction the previous government was leading this country. I became convinced that nothing short of a defeat of that government was necessary if Canada was going to chart out a new course and avoid the disaster that would surely come to this nation had the Canadian people voted otherwise last spring.
In the past decade, the government's share of Canada's gross national product has grown from 33.7 per cent to 41.1 per cent. What is the significance of these comparative ratios to the average Canadian? In terms of impact on our everyday lives, probably very little. However, when these figures are projected into the future they become ominous indeed. They really tell us of the extent to which government-all governments, federal, provincial, and municipal-are shaping and controlling the destiny of our political economy. It has been argued that once government controls more than 40 per cent of a nation's production the trend becomes irreversible-that the nation is on a course to inevitable state control of the means of production and distribution of all goods and services.
We have never had a referendum or bill repealing economic freedom, and there is little evidence of a consensus for a national goal of collectivism. Nevertheless, we are drifting from a society that once valued thrift, initiative, and reward for effort into one where governments are borrowing from the future to meet rising expectations which they have helped to fuel.
Almost a quarter of what the federal government now spends comes not from taxes or general revenues but by borrowing from capital markets or printing new money. In the past decade, Canadians have seen the rise of a powerful

political system. The federal public service, excluding military and Crown corporation personnel, has grown from 237,000 to 317,000, an increase of 34 per cent. The operating costs of the federal government have quadrupled, and federal spending has quintupled. In the same ten-year period, taxes paid per person have increased three and three-quarter times.
It is noteworthy that if, during the period of controls, the federal government had heeded the same guidelines for restraint as they set out for the rest of us, federal expenditures would be $3.3 billion lower than they stand at present. Long before the introduction of controls which had the effect of transferring critical management decisions from the private sector to the government, there was clear evidence of a trend to turn to government as the ultimate determinant in what has been labelled the "political bargaining arena".
My concern, one which I hope goes beyond partisan considerations, is that this drift toward a larger state role will result in a boring and sterile society from which excellence, and perhaps freedom, too, will vanish. History tells us that no society can remain free in terms of civil rights or the political process when its people have transferred all significant powers to its government. It is a concern which goes beyond the prospects for our economic system to the future of Canadian society.
Civilization moves forward through ideas. The dynamics of progress of any country are essentially the dynamics of ideas- the extent to which the nation is effecitively able to develop and utilize its creative power and its human talents. The way in which ideas emerge into the mainstream of the social, cultural, political, and economic life of a nation has a great deal to do with its progress and destiny. My point is that the processes of idea creation, of national planning, of alternative futures exploration, of resource deployment and priority-setting-all of the basic processes which ultimately determine the kind of society in which future generations will live-seem to have been turned over to government. We have come to expect from government the development of the grand design because we have turned over to it the responsibility for managing, financing, and challenging social change. We must now recognize that governments are not supremely wise and infinitely perfect and that, like all human institutions, they never will be. Thus, only disaster can result when a country's ideas, knowledge, and intellectualism become subservient to government.
The time is ripe for the emergence of new approaches to social, political, and economic problems. We are entering an era when Canada and the western industrialized nations must turn to new avenues of creative power for civilization's advance. To strain all this creative power through the funnel of power politics and bureaucratic compression would defeat the very purpose of such a vital endeavour. The result would be a political monotheism that fossilizes all human progress. Our task must be to seek out the kind of initiatives which are required to bring about a rebirth of a creative free society in a dramatically new context. We must begin the creative adventure in the quest for larger truths, a higher order of morality, responsible philosophical perception, and visionary leadership.
October 19, 1979

I am not suggesting we should attempt to drive government back to its passive role of half a century ago. That is neither desirable nor possible. However, there must surely be some human alternative to the notion that all we really need to solve our problems is simply another scoop of government.
1 believe there is deep concern about society's drift and the dearth of renewing ideas which comes from creeping statism. What is urgently needed before we reach the point of no return is an intelligent dialogue and debate on the sickness of an overgoverned society. Canadians are receptive to constructive proposals grounded in the public interest that promise any possible rational recovery from the malaise with which we are afflicted. The problems confronting our social institutions present seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. I am confident, however, that they can be solved in a creative society in which our citizens are encouraged to utilize their political will and optimal intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, permit me to set out a few of these ideas which I submit in the hope that they may be considered to be worthy of thought as a disciplined intellectual, if not constitutional, framework for new directions to Canada's political economy.
First, to reverse the trend to increasing government control of our private institutions, we might permit citizens to directly allocate up to $100 of their income taxes to non-profit, voluntary agencies. Organizations such as those engaged in education, recreation, sports, health, medical research, and the arts would benefit, as well as newly created agencies with new hope for financial viability. The consequences would be a reduced dependency on government, reversing the drift to state control which threatens the dynamism of a free pluralistic society, and shifting the locus of funding power from government to the hearts, minds, and purses of individual Canadians. This could have the effect of unleashing a productive synergy through the creation of new associations for the study of such apparently insoluble problems as inflation, unemployment, industrial strife, crime, poverty, and war, as well as centres for the study of alternative energy resources and alternative futures research.
Second, each Parliament should be required to balance its budget for the life of that Parliament. The last Parliament added more than $30 billion to the public debt, with interest charges more than doubling. Altering this course is both a moral and an economic imperative. We must now give thought to making it a political imperative. Governments must not be allowed to buy power by stealing from the future. To pay for what we want today, as a society, we must have the moral courage to tax our citizens and to raise the funds necessary to meet those wants. Instead of belittling the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) in the hope of political advantage, we should lend him our full moral and political support. I say to both the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that, notwithstanding the terrible legacy of the previous decade, the people of Canada will stand behind them in the tough decisions they will have to make.
The Address-Mr. Jupp
As a nation we are confronted with three real choices when it comes to government spending: First, a drastic reduction in expenditures, including cuts in programs which none of us really want to see cut; second, a major increase in revenues, largely through increased taxation, or; third, national bankruptcy. The mindless spending of the previous administration has had the effect of fueling inflation, debasing our currency, and robbing our citizens of their savings. It is the very difficult task of this administration to restore common sense to government spending, notwithstanding the opportunistic posturing of some hon. members opposite.
Third, the size of the bureaucracy should be reduced by at least 60,000, not including Crown corporations. It should then be limited according to our population growth. The centralized federal bureaucracy interferes with every aspect of our daily lives. It regulates and directs our business affairs, taps our telephones, opens our mail, misuses our tax returns, invades premises without warrant, and tries individuals in secret courts. Only an alert Parliament, aided by constitutional change, will mitigate such abuses of our liberty.
Fourth, the dates for the calling of general elections should be prescribed, every four years. We should not give prime ministers the right to play games with the electorate, with political parties and with the lives of those who offer themselves for public office. I am not advocating a limitation on parliamentary democracy. The government must at all times retain the confidence of the House of Commons. However, I believe that the calling of elections is too important to be left to the whim of prime ministers or their advisers' interpretations of the latest Gallup poll. These are just a few of the ideas I gathered from my one year of knocking on doors in Mississauga North.
I am heartened by the determination of our new Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to restore Parliament as a responsible and useful instrument of idea creation, by his frank and open communications with Parliament and the Canadian people, and by his preparedness not just to tolerate but also to encourage dissent as a useful contribution to public policy formation. These are all refreshing signs which lead me to be optimistic about the future of this Parliament, of this government and, indeed, of Canada.
Notwithstanding the legacy of serious fiscal imbalance, of an emasculated Parliament, of inflation, of unemployment, of debt and of confrontation-all of the factors which have contributed to our national malaise-there is hope for this country. I am convinced, however, that if we want to restore some sense of social and economic stability and some sense of nationhood, we must give serious thought to the direction in which we are going. We Canadians, through this Parliament, require a commitment to new national goals.
We have the potential. We have a rich and diversified resource base. We have sophisticated technology which places us in the scientific forefront. We have a high level of personal savings for investment because we are a prudent people. We have some of the best cereal grain-growing lands and forests in

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. McRae
the world. We have an educated work force. We have the potential to become self-sufficient in energy, and we have the blood of a hundred nations flowing through our veins. No other country in the world has more to offer to its people. No other country has all those ingredients. What we lacked in the past was the political will to put those ingredients together.
This is the challenge of this Parliament. This is the challenge of this government. Let us go forward with a zest for achievement, new ideas for nation building, and new ideals for excellence. Let us go forward in the creative adventure of providing new direction to Canada of which we can all be proud.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, as is customary, 1 would like first to congratulate the Speaker on his election. Those of us who sat through the Thirtieth Parliament are well aware of the contribution he made to Parliament in terms of increasing its prestige and enlarging its scope and power. Under Mr. Speaker we had the advent of television in the House, and in many ways his support and his working with Parliament have added immeasurably to the prestige of Parliament.
1 congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) for their acceptance and for nominating Mr. Speaker, with the idea that he is the very best person in the House we could possibly find to take care of the needs of this House.
It is customary for new members at the beginning of their speeches to speak about their constituencies, and I would like to do that myself, even though I have been here for two Parliaments, because my constituency, like all our constituencies, changed somewhat in the course of the last election.
The constituency I represented in the past was Fort William, part of the city of Thunder Bay. The constituency has been enlarged and has joined with a part of another constituency. It now includes the community and area around it about 140 miles from Thunder Bay, known as Atikokan. Atikokan is a mining community different from Thunder Bay, which is basically a pulp and paper and manufacturing community.
Unfortunately, in the last year Atikokan has gone through a rather bad transformation. One of the major mines has shut down, and the second mine will be shut down within the next six months or so. However, this community has shown some real fortitude and decided that it is going to continue. Its people have put together many new enterprises, and they are looking forward to the coming on stream of another mine, Bending Lake, in the next two or three years. I will be very pleased to represent the people of that area and to push as hard as I can for the coming on stream of this particular mine. We will be watching things like pipelines and how well the government handles the Foothills and other pipeline deals, which will increase the demand for iron ore and bring on the Bending Lake operation more quickly.
The city of Thunder Bay is Canada's largest grain port and one of the world's largest grain ports, if not the largest. It very

seldom is mentioned in terms of the moving of grain. There was an article recently in the Toronto Star and an editorial in The Globe and Mail about all the difficulties we are having regarding the movement of grain. The articles mentioned rail problems, labour problems and so forth, but in neither of these articles was the city of Thunder Bay mentioned, even though two thirds of all the grain shipped out of this country goes through Thunder Bay, twice as much as Vancouver.
As a matter of fact, I believe it is estimated that we could move all the grain going through Churchill out through Thunder Bay in four days in any given season. The port is grossly under-utilized. We could handle twice as much grain if we had sufficient rail cars. I am concerned about this because Dr. Horner recently suggested that one of the solutions to the problem of grain movement might be to move unit trains to the east coast, bypassing Thunder Bay. Of course this does not make very much sense. In the first place, the major reason grain is not moving the way it should be is that we do not have a sufficient number of rail cars. The railways are not moving grain as they should. If we move grain by unit trains to the east coast we will need three or four times as many rail cars as would be needed to move grain just to Thunder Bay.
The second major point which must be understood is that one of the main reasons Thunder Bay is so efficient is that grain moves from Thunder Bay 2,200 miles to the open sea, or to Sept-Isles. That grain goes out on a ship, the grain is unloaded and iron ore is brought back to Sault Ste. Marie and to some American ports. That is a very major development. It is a very major transportation activity in our country. The efficiency of Thunder Bay depends a great deal on the fact that ships do not come back with empty bottoms. I think a great deal more thought should be given to utilization, and I hope this government will consider greater utilization of the port of Thunder Bay.
Perhaps one of the misconceptions we have is that all grain moving to China, Japan and Asia must go through west coast ports. A very senior official of CPR said to me in a conversation that he is convinced that if the Crowsnest rates were not in place, it would be cheaper to move grain from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to Thunder Bay and by ship through the Panama Canal and to Asia than it would be to move it across the Rocky Mountains into Vancouver.
I would like to mention one other point regarding the port of Thunder Bay because I think it is important. We have not had a major labour stoppage or a major strike since 1968. To conclude on this particular point, I should like the House and the government to know that the Thunder Bay operation is very efficient, very cheap, and very under-utilized.
We in opposition have to learn this new role, much the same way as hon. members opposite, having spent many years in oppostion, have to learn the new role of government. There is no doubt about that, and it is a different process either way. I think it behooves us to give the government a bit of a chance, while we are trying to get our act together, to show what it is going to do. We should not be too critical.
October 19, 1979

For many reasons we were not as critical of the government this summer perhaps as we might have been regarding some of the things it did. I still believe they have to work things out, and 1 do not believe it is our job to tear them apart in the first six months or so of the operation. But I am concerned about one major trend-1 am concerned and it worries me-because I think that one of the facts of life about this country is that we are very weak as a federal government.
This is not a strong federation, it is a weak federation. For a long time, under previous governments, power has been gravitating to the provinces. Some of that is desirable, some is necessary, but I think we have made mistakes. 1 think that one of the mistakes of which we can be accused is block funding in one form or another, the transfer of power to the provinces. I do not envy the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) his job at this point. There is so much transfer of power to the provinces in that area that federal authorities cannot control medicare the way they should be able to control it. 1 think these are some of the mistakes we have made.
I am seriously afraid that this government is continuing this drift, and perhaps even accelerating it. I am concerned when 1 hear the Prime Minister goes to Newfoundland, to British Columbia, and to Nova Scotia and talks about handing away offshore rights. In Newfoundland there is a slightly different constitutional twist to this, but certainly as regards British Columbia and Nova Scotia there is no question about what the constitutional rights are. Offshore resources belong to the people of Canada, to all of Canada. That has clearly been declared by the Supreme Court, and I think it is understood by all. There is nothing wrong with the government of this country making a deal, as we did in the past, and saying, "Okay, we will share these resources, 75 per cent to you, 25 per cent to us." But to say that these will be handed over directly to the provinces is not acceptable.
I am concerned about a series of other things that have happened. I am concerned, for instance-this is a small thing perhaps-about the transfer of Loto Canada, which was Canadian and had some merit, which supported Canadian sports, about its transfer, with considerable loss of revenue to the government. 1 am concerned very much about oil pricing, whether or not this is something that gives one province a very strong advantage over another province. 1 am concerned about the selling, giving away or transferring of Crown corporations to the private sector or, possibly, to the provinces.
1 am especially concerned about PetroCan because that is something for which, from the very beginning, from the time it was first announced by the government, or even before it was announced, I and some of my colleagues here fought very hard. We fought very hard to set this very important piece into the energy policy of this country. In a country where the resources are controlled by the provinces, where the ownership of our resources is so much in the hands of foreign corporations, of multinationals, there is very little left for a federal government to do in the field of energy because we do not have
The Address-Mr. McRae
power. So it is extremely and vitally important that there be an instrument of federal power in terms of energy. Perhaps the most important instrument of federal power, of federal ability to initiate and pursue energy activities in this country, is PetroCan. That is the fundamental reason why it exists, the fundamental reason why we as the government set it up.
I become annoyed when people on my left-just physically on my left, not fundamentally so-grab hold of this issue and say "This is our creation." It is not their creation, it is our creation. We have worked hard for it and we have fought against many members on the other side, including the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), to establish that company. It was done because we needed that fundamental instrument for an energy policy. We needed something to ensure we had an adequate supply of energy for all Canadians, not just for the people in this province or that province.
Members of the government may say they will allow some activities, such as the drilling that has been going on. Last year, in 1978, PetroCan was involved in over 50 per cent of the drilling in the north, and yet it is still the sixth smallest oil company in Canada. I think it was involved in the drilling of 11 out of 13 wells on the east coast, and it was responsible for such things as the Sable Island gas find. These are fundamental to the future of this country at a time when energy shortages are becoming evident to all. So I just do not understand the government that would weaken or destroy this company, that would take the assets, as the leader of the NDP has said, of this country and privatize them, socialize all the liabilities and remove the possibility of the company acting independently, having a decent cash flow and being able to function on its own.
Basically, when you take away Pacific Petroleums, you take away from PetroCan a lot of the technology to function. It will lose its role to be an eye on the industry, an industry which most Canadians do not trust. It is an industry that is not trusted, and yet we have taken away, by this apparent act of the government, the ability to look at the industry and tell us what is happening. The government has made a very major decision and we in the opposition will fight very hard, not to defeat the government so much, but to stop this change. We will fight very hard to ensure that this bill does not go through, that Canada will retain a strong instrument for an energy policy in this country.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about economic policy because I think there is a kind of misconception in the House and in the country that the high interest energy policy of the previous government is the same as the high interest energy policy of this government. I would like to spend a good deal more time on it, but I think I have only about three minutes left. However, 1 would like to make this point very clear.
When we were in power we had an interest rate which disturbed me. There was no question about that. I have had some real doubts about the Keynesian notion that one can

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Darling
manipulate seriously the money supply by the interest rate. I think that is a dead thing. It was functioning for a long time, but I think it is dead now. But there is a fundamental difference between now and then. At that particular time we were following the American interest rates, and there was some point in that. Also at that particular time the difference between the Canadian inflation rate and the Canadian interest rate was approximately 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent. So the net interest was approximately 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent. Roughly that is the situation with the American interest rate today. But the prime rate in Canada now is approximately 13.5 per cent or 14 per cent, and the inflation rate is approximately 9 per cent or 9.5 per cent. So there is about a four or five percentage point difference. The key factor is that the American spread is 1 per cent or 2 per cent and our spread is 4 per cent or 5 per cent. We do not need that kind of spread. We will be arguing very strongly against increasing interest rates further. We will be arguing very strongly for lowering interest rates because of the nature of the spread.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I am watching the government very carefully. 1 am very, very disturbed that we may be giving away what is vital to Canada being able to continue as a nation. I am concerned that the fundamental economic policies of the government are not in tune with the times. We will be watching those particular things during the next one, two or three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is an honour to have the opportunity this afternoon to participate in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) respectively, for their very articulate and excellent speeches. Congratulations are also in order to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) on his re-election to the high and respected post of Speaker of the House of Commons. The re-election is a sign of the great trust and high regard which many of us place in his ability to preside over the deliberations of this representative body. Also, may I extend my personal congratulations to the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House (Mr. McCain) and his colleagues on their appointment to important positions.
I feel honoured to have the opportunity to extend a warm welcome to all of those members who are gracing this chamber for the first time, and a great many members who have made outstanding speeches already. I feel greatly honoured to be back in this august chamber having first come here in 1972, almost seven years ago. I am deeply indebted to the voters of Parry Sound-Muskoka who, through their action, have given me the honour to represent them in the House. I assure the constituents of Parry Sound-Muskoka that their concerns and interests will remain always in the forefront of my decisions.
I would ask for a brief indulgence to pay homage to the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker whose demise has deprived the
(Mr. McRae.]
Parliament of Canada of one of its staunch supporters and participants. While one accepts his passing away with deep regret and sorrow, one cannot help but feel a vacuum in this chamber. The right hon. gentleman's monumental contributions to Canada in numerous forms will long be remembered dearly. What I may utter today will not do justice to the dedicated task of attaining some lofty principles for Canada. However, I wish to register my deep respect for what the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker stood for. I hope many of us will be able to carry on this noble task in various fields and many more must aspire to the ideals for Canada outlined in the long public career of the late right honourable gentleman.
I see nothing more befitting to grace Parliament hill than a statue of the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. I am sure one of the highlights in the visits to Ottawa and Parliament of many tourists and Canadians would be a visit to such a statue. If the excuse for the delay in erecting such a monument is financial, I am certain Canadians will donate generously toward this project. A statue will be the best tribute we can pay to the man who so strongly guarded parliamentary tradition throughout his entire lifetime.
I cannot help but feel that the entire country from coast to coast took in a breath of fresh hope on May 22. The vigour and dynamism of the new government are beginning to provide the kind of leadership the voters had hoped for in the Progressive Conservative government. I highly commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for his outstanding speech earlier in this debate. He briefly outlined the program of action for Canada which the government expects to pursue. It is a plan which I support. Also I share the vision the Prime Minister has for Canada. We seem to have turned the corner in the matter of federal-provincial relations on to the road of co-operation and understanding. This may be our chance to bridge the rifts of the past. The new Prime Minister has displayed compassion and understanding in his dealings with the many issues confronting our nation today.
Since I represent the picturesque riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, I am delighted to have read the following in the Speech from the Throne:
In co-operation with the provinces and industry, a national tourism strategy will be developed.
If I recall correctly, this is probably the first time tourism has been given such high recognition at the federal level. This commendable action will give rise to some form of organized approach to resolving some of the difficulties encountered by the tourism industry. It is hard to imagine that such an important industry as tourism has been on the back burner for so long. It is an industry which can help restore balance to our international trade picture. For instance, tourism earned approximately $2 billion in foreign exchange last year. Furthermore, there is every indication tourism is on its way to becoming our leading industry in income, export earnings, and employment by the end of the century. Today tourism is a labour-intensive industry, fortunately absorbing a large segment of the labour force. It employs almost 9 per cent of the
October 19, 1979

Canadian work force, or approximately one million people. Tourism and travel generate an income of $11 billion a year for Canadians. This accounts for 5 per cent of our gross national product.
During the summer a special caucus committee was formed with a mandate to look into various aspects of the tourism industry. The committee heard evidence from representatives of various sectors in the industry. One matter was made abundantly clear, and that is that we should give tourism the higher profile it rightly deserves. In this regard 1 have on many earlier occasions spoken in favour of establishing a secretariat for tourism. Once again 1 voice my concern that the delay in establishing such a secretariat will continue to affect adversely this very important industry.
In the spirit of freedom of expression which the Prime Minister would like to encourage among our ranks, I should like the government to consider setting up a secretariat for tourism at the earliest, and include the responsibility for tourism in the title of the minister. The caucus committee on tourism heard representations from various groups, including Tourism Industry Associations of Canada-T1AC, the Alliance of Canadian Travel Associations-ACTA, Via Rail, and the Canadian Automobile Association. It is interesting to note that the minister responsible for tourism was in Newfoundland yesterday to meet with his provincial counterparts. There was meaningful discussion and productive dialogue.
It is interesting to note some of the recommendations that are being made to the government with regard to tourism. These are as follows: that the Canadian Government Office of Tourism-CGOT-be maintained, but that its role be examined and more clearly defined; that CGOT act as a co-ordinating body between the industry and the federal government departments, and between the federal and provincial departments of tourism; that CGOT spearhead the development of a national tourism development plan which does not operate in isolation from but, indeed, as a basic element of national policy on transportation, energy and general economic development; that there be a change of focus to include encouragement of tourism facilities development; that CGOT, in consultation with the industry and the provinces, develop a method for gathering and rapid dissemination of statistical information that will be of assistance to the tourism industry; that the title "Minister of State for International Trade" be changed to "minister of state for international trade and tourism"; that CGOT, in consultation with the provinces and the industry, co-ordinate the development of a national inventory of accommodation to determine the feasibility of a national rating system.
It has also been recommended that the minister express to the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) this committee's concern about the positive contribution that Parks Canada could make to the tourist industry. At the present time a great many of us feel it is too restricted. We also hope that the minister will request the Minister of Trans-
The Address-Mr. Darling
port (Mr. Mazankowski) to look into the effect of eliminating Canadian regulations hindering the entry of U.S. public charters on the Canadian air industry and tourism. It is also recommended that the minister strongly recommend to the Minister of Transport that any consideration of transportation policy should include passenger rail service and its impact on tourism.
I have been impressed with the down to earth approach of the present government. In this regard I am able to substantiate that it is the first time in the history of the Parry Sound coastguard base that a Minister of Transport from Ottawa has paid an official visit. This base, which serves the vital Great Lakes area, was visited by the Minister of Transport not too long ago, in fact on September 26. This is concrete evidence that this government wants to come to grips with the reality of problems facing Canadians by getting down to talking to the people. The previous government grew so arrogant and isolated in Ottawa it forgot that its mandate came from Canadians across the country. It is no wonder that such a harsh and deserved judgment was cast upon them in the last general election.
Another example of this new form of government is the recent visit by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Nielsen) to survey flood damage around the Lake Nipissing area.
What such visits symbolize is the desire on the part of the government to listen to the concerns of average Canadians, and to govern through consensus rather than dictation. The government in Ottawa cannot become isolated from the people like its predecessor, for it plans to stay in touch with the people.
Our national defence is being brought back on the rails by the very competent and able Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon). I had the honour a week or so ago to announce on behalf of the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs the expansion and upgrading of facilities, including the installation of new computer facilities in order to improve the surveillance of all Canadian air space. The move to establish the region operations control centre in North Bay to ensure the sovereignty of Canadian air space is a welcome move to all Canadians. The expenditure of $87 million on the upgrading of facilities and the employment of another 200 personnel in the area will certainly be a welcome boost to its economy.
While on the question of defence I must register my strong support for Canada to fulfil its commitment to participate in NATO with its other allies. Our participation in this vital body must be restored to the fullest. The recent ploys of President Brezhnev to reduce Soviet armed strength in Europe must not be taken at face value. The west must continue to be diligent and on guard even in times of detente.
The residents of Parry Sound-Muskoka have been concerned for quite some time now about the ill effects of acid rain and what it does to the many lakes in the area. I am delighted to see that the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment has placed the question of acid rain high on his list for resolution, in consultation with our southerly neighbour. All of

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Darling
us wish him well in his deliberations and hope the efforts will bring good news.
As most have read in a recent issue of The Globe and Mail. a committee recently released a report which is certainly very disconcerting and shocking, especially in relation to my area which is one of the greatest tourist areas in the Dominion of Canada. The facts published in the paper were that about five million metric tons of sulphur dioxide is produced in Canada annually compared with about 25.7 million metric tons in the United States, and that of the U.S. emissions, about four million metric tons flow northward, compared with between
500,000	and 700,000 tonnes that blow south from Canada. It is very easy to see that even if we are able to reduce our emissions of sulphur dioxide we are not going to make much of an impact until the United States is willing to do the same.
There is certainly great concern among those of us in Ontario because about 140 lakes in Ontario, primarily in the Sudbury area and south, which includes my area, have been acidized to the point where they will not support certain types of fish. Let us hope something will be done about this. It is also noted that forest lands do not lend themselves to alternate uses. This fact was not given too much priority at the outset, but it is certainly something that gives us a great deal to think about.
The Progressive Conservative party, as we are aware, is the party of small business. It is this government which can best provide the ideal climate for growth of small businesses. After all, small businesses, whether in the tourist industry or any other, form the backbone of the economy of our country. Individual initiative is best reflected in the number of successful businesses that operate in this country. The task before us is to create a climate which will be attractive to new investment and will draw capital from all sources.
Another point on which I would like to touch briefly relates to the throne speech. The throne speech is not the be all and end all. It is merely an indication in the most general terms of what the government intends to do during its term in office. No one ought to expect dramatic announcements. The era of dramatic pronouncements faded away with the former government. The present government will obviously be making announcements, but on an ongoing basis. Not every item could have been detailed in the Speech from the Throne.
Apart from the economic crisis, the world today faces energy crises. Canada is well endowed with energy sources, ranging from the traditional coal to the tar sands. One must be pleased with the announcement in the Speech from the Throne of the intention to make Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990. It is essential that we strive toward this goal in order to meet the energy challenge. In this regard I would like to mention the possible exploitation of peat or muskeg for energy use. Canada has a large reservoir of peat which is yet to be tapped. 1 have been in touch with various government departments to investigate this further.
I have for a long time been an advocate of some changes in spouse's allowances. I am, therefore, glad to note that Parliament will be asked to extend spouse's allowances in circum-

stances where they are now denied. 1 certainly welcome the introduction of the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act to bring in the necessary changes.
In the last few days there has been a lot of hysterical talk about the economic state of our country, talk that concentrated around the unfortunate increase in interest rates. Let me assure you that no one is happy with increases in interest rates. On the other hand, one cannot easily dismiss and overcome the mess in which the Liberals left the economy. A time period of a mere five months cannot remedy the Liberal's misguided economic policies of the last dozen years.

During my election campaign I pledged to fight against an increase in interest rates. I plan to continue this fight. As a former owner of a small business, I am well aware of the damage high interest rates can inflict upon small businesses. The cost of money, especially invested money, can be prohibitive, and often stifling to the growth or basic survival of small businesses.
Every Canadian is delighted to know that the Progressive Conservative government has kept its election promise to allow property and tax credits to come into operation at the earliest opportunity. This will make the dream of owning a home a reality for many Canadians in all income brackets. In addition, this program will provide stimulus to the construction and home furnishing industries. These industries are largely Canadian-owned and will be able to generate more jobs and income. The program will provide tax relief to existing home owners, as well as provide incentives that will make home ownership more attractive to prospective home buyers. This program will go a long way to making the basic necessity, shelter, available to a greater number of Canadians than ever before.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and take part in this debate. First of all 1 want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald). Both members acquitted themselves well, and 1 am sure that they will continue to be an honour and a credit to their constituents in this chamber.
I want to congratulate, too, the Speaker of this House on his re-election and also congratulate as Acting Speaker, the representative for Carleton-Charlotte, who occupies the chair today.
This throne speech was not so much a throne speech as a university calendar. It offered us not so much a course of action as a course of study. It was not so much a series of proposals for moving our country forward as a series of seminars. We take our choice of a study on cultural policy, foreign ownership, the voluntary sector, and nuclear energy.
Of course there were some indications of good things to come. I was pleased, for example, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) pointed out, to see the
October 19, 1979

reference to improving the guidelines for the spouse's allowance. We will have to wait and see, of course, just what this means. Now that the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Graff-tey) has been removed from social programs, we might assume that a less hard line on selectivity will be taken on this and other social programs. Had he stayed where he was, no doubt we would have seen the application of Tory philosophy in the form of the means test, and we may still see it. But in my opinion this is not the route to go. The principles of universality in pensions and the spouse's allowance must never be tampered with.
Our senior citizens receive the pension not as a privilege but as a right. They deserve it because of their hard work throughout the years, and because of their contribution to society. They have paid into this scheme throughout their lives, and it is only fair and just that they all receive the pension in their later years. In any case, those in higher income brackets return the pension with their taxes. I hope the government will not be so foolish as to apply the means test to old age pensioners.
1 was also interested to hear that amendments would be made to veterans legislation. I sincerely hope that those measures will improve the lot of those who, in many cases, gave the best years of their lives for their country, and improve the lot also of their widows and dependants. However, I am fearful of this. This government has seen fit to insult our war veterans by abolishing the Ministry of Veterans Affairs as a full time portfolio. I can tell this government that veterans across this country will not take it lying down. They are not that kind of people, and neither are their sons or daughters. Certainly that is the word which I get from Newfoundland.
My colleague, the former member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe who now occupies a position in the other place, must have been shocked and angered to hear of the disregard for veterans' rights. For years in this House he fought incessantly to improve the lot of veterans like himself. I know that Senator Ches Carter, another champion of veterans, must have been shocked and angered as well. I can tell veterans that this party will not forget them and that we will speak on their behalf in this chamber to ensure that their interests are protected. War veterans have many vivid memories. They do not easily forget, and I can tell you they will not forget this government.
There are other measures that we look forward to with great interest. 1 welcome the extension of the power of Parliament and greater prominence given to private members' initiatives. I should congratulate, too, my own member of Parliament, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on attaining the position he now occupies. 1 am sure that he will lend to that position the competence and dignity that he lent to his former position as House leader for the opposition. I welcome the reference in the throne speech to this measure.
I welcome too the suggestion of a youth employment secretariat and an employment strategy for women. 1 welcome the indication that the mandate of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be strengthened. This policy, a policy of our party, has been a tremendous asset to our people in improving services and expanding business in the Atlantic
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
provinces. These are positive and progressive measures and, provided they are well thought through, they should mean a great improvement.
Most of the campaign promises of this government were quickly forgotten, shelved, or "task-forced" once they got into office. One they did keep was the transfer of ownership of offshore resources of Newfoundland. There has been a strong positive reaction to this in our province. The House misunderstands the background of this. For decades my province has been a virtual ward of central Canada. Newfoundlanders have resented coming to Ottawa cap in hand for DREE agreements and other special concessions. They have never been satisfied that equalization payments have been such a large portion of the provincial budget. They have tried desperately to change an economy where unemployment insurance payments amount to $250 million a year, ranking after wages in transportation, and ahead of wages and salaries in fishing, mining, hospitals, and education. The amount from unemployment insurance is second only to the wages and salaries we get from biggest contributor of all to the provincial economy, and that is transportation.
We have always been an independent people in the best sense of the word, and we have never been afraid of hard work. Now, with clear indications of lucrative oil discoveries off our shores, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians see an opportunity to be self-reliant, self-supporting, and to contribute to, rather than draw from, the Canadian confederation. Of course we have contributed already our culture, our history, our songs and stories, and our traditions. When Canada is searching for an identity we have at least known who we are and where we come from. But now the emphasis must be on where we are going.
It is important for us to protect our way of life from the possible disruptions that the development of oil reserves can cause. Many of our people still live in small communities by the sea, sustained by a fishing economy and the strong bonds of community life. We must ensure that development is controlled, that it is not disruptive, and that it does not fracture or overwhelm the present way of life in Newfoundland. We must ensure that development is in the best interests of our people and that they will derive both immediate and lasting benefits from it. Therefore Newfoundland must have the power to look after its interest, but we will need to know a great deal more than what is contained in the correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the premier. What has been agreed to is ownership. What is needed is control. These are interesting words-ownership, control, jurisdiction. How will they be interpreted in legislation and possible constitutional amendments? What will be the final deal? What will be the trade-offs? We will have to wait and see, and we will be watching closely.
Newfoundland and Labrador have legitimate needs, concerns, and rights flowing from their history, but Canada has needs and concerns too. If we want to be full Canadians in every sense of the word, surely we must act to strengthen Canada and not weaken it. Newfoundlanders and Labradori-

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
arts may not be entirely satisfied with their present role in confederation, but they know full well the blessings of confederation, and they want very much to be a part of this country.
We are a people who have been known for our generosity and not our selfishness. I know that while Newfoundlanders want fiercely to defend their own interests, they will want to ensure that the country is strong too, in energy supply and in every other way. 1 believe that both of these aims can be achieved. But we will be watching closely as the negotiations go on between Ottawa and Newfoundland. I will be watching as a Newfoundlander and as a Canadian.
In the meantime we have serious problems that are of an immediate nature. Some of the oil discoveries are near our most historic and richest fishing grounds, the Grand Banks. There is imminent danger of the non-renewable resource destroying the renewable; and the fish, Mr. Speaker, will be there, we hope, long after the oil is gone. That is why, as I said earlier, controlled development is so important. Newfoundland and Labrador have depended on, and will continue to depend on fish as the mainstay of the economy. Therefore it is urgent that a proper contingency plan for dealing with oil spills be put in place. To my knowledge there is not one. I would suggest to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) who, I know, shares my concern, that he see to it that such a plan, together with the necessary equipment placed in Newfoundland and Labrador, is put in operation immediately. He has the authority and the responsibility for this and he should act right away.
I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from St. John's East, Mr. Speaker, and to wish him well in his portfolio as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He is the first Newfoundlander to hold that portfolio. Much will be expected of him, in his home province as well as other areas of Canada. He has distinguished himself in this chamber as a member of Parliament. 1 hope his policies will be in line with his proposals. He will have some tough decisions to make. For our part, Mr. Speaker, we will be watching closely to see that those decisions are in the best interests of the fishermen and of the industry as a whole.
The Speech from the Throne tells us that a white paper will be produced on the fishery. After six months in office, when there are serious problems to be resolved the best this government can do is a white paper. No doubt this is all part of the plan for greater consultation. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but 1 would ask the minister what consultation there was with inshore fishermen before large vessels were allowed back in the Gulf recently to fish for cod. This is an action which was undertaken without consultation. Yet the minister has said in his Corner Brook speech and elsewhere that emphasis must be given to the inshore fishery, and that the communities along the northeast coast of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador must be protected.
We could not agree more, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the minister in saying this, is continuing the policy of the former minister of
fisheries and of this party when we formed the administration. It is the right policy. The inshore fishery is important in the Atlantic provinces, not simply from the point of view of economics, but because of our very settlement and way of life. The inshore fishery and the Atlantic lifestyle are inseparably intertwined. To tamper with one is to undermine the other. That being the case, I ask how is it that there is no money in the small craft harbour budget to build and repair desperatly needed wharves and breakwaters? How is it that millions of dollars of Canada Works funds will go unspent because small craft harbours has no budget to complement the Canada Works funds as has been done over the past several years?
This party realized how important shore facilities were, and more than tripled the budget for them in recent years. I have brought this to the attention of the government before and nothing has been done. This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I quote from a recent editorial in the St. John's Evening Telegram as follows:
Fishermen are in constant danger of losing not only their industrial property but also their lives, without adequate protection in many harbours.
It goes on to say:
But Newfoundland now does have two cabinet ministers in Ottawa, and they are in key positions in this respect, the Finance and Fisheries portfolios. They have already showed they can use their influence and knowledge to win support from their largely farm and city-oriented colleagues for other marine and related projects, and we hope they can be just as successful in getting action on the inadequacies of our small craft havens.
I echo those sentiments. But in all fairness it is the intransigence of the "Baron of Bay Street", the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), that is the real difficulty. He has not earned his reputation as "The Slasher" without hard work, Mr. Speaker. Not only has he slashed the public works budget for marine works, he has slashed millions of dollars in the vessel subsidies so that since June no inshore fishermen anywhere in the Atlantic region or Quebec have been able to replace vessels or to build new ones, and this at a time when the Atlantic fishery is more lucrative than ever.
Thanks to the establishment of the 200-mile limit by the previous Liberal government, the fish stocks are rebuilding, the price is good, and fishermen are optimistic. At least they were optimistic until the member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) got his hands on the tiller. Whatever he is doing, one thing is certain-he is not helping the fishermen. Even his leader has said that there are areas of the Canadian economy which need stimulation. The fishery is one of those, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not know how we can get that message to the President of the Treasury Board, but I can tell him that fishermen in Atlantic Canada and Quebec are frustrated and angry at the lack of support they are experiencing. I suspect it is true for fishermen and pleasure boat users who need small craft harbours in all areas of Canada. Consultation is fine, but it will not float; you cannot tie your boat to it, and you cannot eat it.
I would suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that he leave the towers of Bay Street and get into Atlantic Canada. If he does, he will find out for himself how disastrous his policies will be for the Fishermen in that area. If he goes to Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, he should take time for a trip on
[Mr. Rompkey. 1
October 19, 1979

the new Newfy Bullet. Yes, there is a Newfy Bullet, Mr. Speaker. It is not a big train, mind you. In fact, it is only one car. But it is beautifully outfitted. I listened to my colleagues in the House talk about more hopper cars for grain and the need for improvement in trains. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) mentioned that, and I certainly agree with him. We have a train now. It is confined to one car but it is a good car, a great car. It has sleeping and eating accommodations, a Cordon Bleu, even a telephone. And the President of the Treasury Board should not have any trouble getting on because the car is for VIP's only. It is for the movers and shakers in CN-at least the shakers-and the movers and shakers in the government. It is not the sort of thing you go fishing in on the 24th of May.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have made changes. It is no longer CN in Newfoundland but Terra Transport. Evidently, the President of the Treasury Board gave them enough money to buy a new name. No new track; no new cars; no new passengers; no new freight; a new name! I thought the Newfy joke was dead, Mr. Speaker, but it is not. It is alive and well, and running on a narrow gauge track!
The premier of the province was impressed. He said the announcement was merely cosmetic. He said, and I quote;
This latest announcement is a very silly attempt by CN to try and indicate to the people of Newfoundland that they are really doing something. The main problem we have right now is to get CN, who are totally responsible for the railway, to spend some money on it and try to make it a viable force in transportation in this province.
Right on, Mr. Speaker! We have heard from the Tory premier of Newfoundland and we could not agree more. That is a provincial premier speaking. So we have to sit up and take notice. The words of a provincial premier are not to be taken lightly or wantonly, but soberly and in the fear of God. And by the way, why was he not consulted about this? It was not "consult", Mr. Speaker; it was "insult". Is it any wonder that Newfoundland wants more control over its own affairs?
The new government has brought back the Newfy Bullet, Mr. Speaker. But how it is going to get half a million people into that one little car escapes me. Of course the people of Labrador will not be able to travel on it anyway because there are no tracks in Labrador, not even narrow gauge. My colleague, the hon. member from St. John's East, will be amused by the reversal of roles that goes on in this House. If he looks back through Hansard or, if I do, we will find a transposition of speeches of some years ago.
I want to talk about oil prices because the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka mentioned that. He talked about small businesses and the necessity to support them. I agree with that, but I wonder how we can support them with fuel oil prices rising 14 cents per gallon and gasoline rising 24 cents per gallon. That policy will have a disastrous effect in Atlantic Canada. I noticed that one cabinet minister is reported as saying that gasoline might even rise to $1.30 per gallon. Yesterday in Ottawa The Citizen reported someone as saying that within the next couple of years it might even rise to $1.45 per gallon.
The Address-Mr. Nickerson
It might interest the House of Commons to know, Mr. Speaker, that in Labrador city gasoline is already $1.39 a gallon, and fuel oil, 79 cents a gallon. In Goose Bay gasoline is over $1.40 a gallon. In Rigolet and St. Anthony it is in the same range. These are people who live in northern areas of the country where the winters are long and cold. To ask those people, most of whom do not have the capacity to pay, to shoulder the burden of higher fuel prices in the interests of conservation, is ludicrous. We are not talking about people who are wasting money on luxuries. We are talking about people who are working hard to make ends meet. This government says they should pay higher prices in the interests of conservation, in accordance with the demands of the Arab countries. There are other ways to achieve conservation, Mr. Speaker, more effective, less costly, and less harmful to primary producers and those at the lower end of the income scale.
What of small businesses? My friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka who preceded me mentioned those. They are struggling to survive, in danger of being swallowed up by large corporations. What will higher energy costs do to them? Besides adding to inflation, of which we have an overdose in the Atlantic, it will be an additional hurdle they have to overcome on the road to survival.
The real burden will be on the old, the widows, the disabled, the young, those who are on fixed incomes and low incomes, those who through no fault of their own cannot help themselves. Are we to tell old age pensioners that they must burn less gas in their power boats and skidoos? In fact, are we going to tell that to fishermen, loggers or miners? This government is. It says it will increase oil $4 a barrel by the end of 1980, adding about $100 to the average annual heating bill. The government may consult with the provinces on this one, but apart from Alberta it is unlikely it will get consent. Ministers are finally going to have to bite the bullet themselves.
My friend mentioned that the ministers of tourism are meeting in Newfoundland for the first time. That is good. However, what is their position on the increase in the cost of energy and what will it do to the tourism industry? The ministers of finance will also be meeting. It will be nice to see what comes out of St. John's.


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


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for these few short minutes. I guess I will have to do a very major editing job on my speech. Unfortunately the first thing to go will have to be the congratulations to yourself. The second thing to go will be the geography lesson. We now get down to the main body of the speech.
A hundred years ago it was important that if Canada was to survive as a distinct nation the southern border be secured. Through the actions of great statesmen such as John A. Macdonald, this was achieved and it was Canada, not our

October 19, 1979
The Address-Mr. Nickerson
friends from the south, that took possession and developed the vacant prairies.
This having been done, it was then necessary to turn our eyes northward. However, it was not until that equally great Canadian statesman, the Right Hon. John George Diefen-baker, gave us his vision of the north, that Canadians as a whole began to realize that the destiny of this country lies in the effective use and occupation of Canada north of that narrow belt along the United States border.
Unfortunately the vision was transitory and became blurred when new governments took office, governments with a concept of Canada restricted to the limited geographical areas of central Quebec and Ontario from which they drew their political support. With a new and progressive government in office, we can look forward to a resurrection of the Diefen-baker vision, and we in the north, who have so much to offer, can look forward to playing our full role within the Canadian confederation.
His Excellency the Governor General in his throne speech outlined the two main fields in which progress has to be made in the northern territories. They are, of course, industrial and resource development on one hand, and constitutional development on the other.
There is no sound reason why prosperity should stop at the 60th parallel. The distribution of resources does not respect political boundaries. Resources extend on both sides of the border. There is no sound underlying economic reason why Alberta enjoys the highest standard of prosperity in this country whereas a few yards over the border the state of the economy is one of neglect and stagnation.
It is necessary that the Government of Canada help in the development of resources in the Northwest Territories, resources which it holds in trust for eventual Canadian provinces to be established in the north.
The throne speech refers specifically to the minerals industry. If you let us develop our oil fields and our gas fields, if you let us develop our uranium mines, if you let us harness our extensive hydro-electric resources, we can help Canada achieve its goal of energy self-sufficiency. If you allow us to develop our deposits of base and precious metals, our fishing industry and our fur industry, by exporting these products we can help Canada balance its books and reduce its international balance of payment deficit, and help restore international confidence in the Canadian currency.
If you allow us to develop our agriculture, our forests and our tourist industry, we will generate our own sources of revenue and become less dependent on the largesse of the southern Canadian taxpayer. All we want is the opportunity to do these things, and to be treated fairly and honestly in the same way as Canadians living in the southern provinces.
For these great things to happen, Canada must be prepared to invest in the provision of the necessary infrastructure. Roads have to be built, harbours and airports constructed, electric power made available at reasonable costs. What is probably more important is that present disincentives to investment in the north have to be removed. Our taxation policies and regulatory environment should be both certain, free from

arbitrary measures, and designed to encourage northern investment by Canadians. Our system of land tenure must ensure security of title, and our transportation policies must be designed so that products shipped both from and into the north can reach their destinations without being priced out of the marketplace.
In the very few minutes left 1 will turn to the subject of responsible government and the fact that northern Canadians to this very day are denied the full rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship. Is it conceivable that in the last quarter of the twentieth century Canada still governs part of its own country in this semi-colonial fashion?
Because we have to finish in about 60 seconds, I will dispense with the other things I had to say on the very important subject of constitutional development in the north. I would like to end by saying this. In the Northwest Territories the paternalistic socialism of the previous government has failed, and failed miserably. I am pround to stand here today as part of a new government, one unencumbered by the mistakes of the past, a government devoted to the active development of the Canadian north, a government that holds dear the principles of individual liberty and of private ownership, and most of all a government that recognizes the right of all Canadians, whether they live in the south or the north, to be masters of their own fate and controllers of their own political destiny.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to an agreement reached earlier this day, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Fretz) agreed to.


Walter David Baker: That the Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Turner:: Would the government House leader tell us the business for Monday?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The first piece of legislation by the new government is the bill standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to correct an inequity in old age security legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. It being after five o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 22, 1979