1979-10-15

Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very urgent matter.
Considering that the Outaouais regional school board, regrouping some 20 high schools from Fort-Coulonge to Gatineau, has experienced major problems with its call for tenders to meet its fuel needs in 1979-80; considering that in recent years the same school board always made such an invitation at the same period of the year and always received bids from four large companies; and considering that much to its surprise, only one bid with oil prices 30 per cent higher than last year has been received, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre);
That an investigation be launched as soon as possible to consider what appears to be a cartel at the Outaouais school board and other school institutions in western Quebec as regards the limited number of oil companies interested in bidding.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the very recent marine accident which has damaged a key railway bridge providing CN access to the port of Vancouver, in view of the potentially dire consequences for the port as a result of this accident, which may cut capacity by 15 per cent and cause millions of dollars in lost business, and in view of the backlog in grain shipments already causing congestion in the port, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the Minister of Transport intervene personally with the CNR to ensure that direct rail access to the port of Vancouver is restored as quickly as possible, and that temporary alternative means of access are put in place during the time that the damaged bridge is out of service, if possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity which I hope will be unanimously approved by this House.
In view of the fact that today is the first day of the week commemorating the recognition of women as persons in Canadian public life, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House warmly and unanimously supports the active participation of women in public affairs and officially recognizes the designation of this week as Persons' Week.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope hon. members will not think that I am being unduly restrictive in saying that this motion gets very close to the kind of supportive or congratulatory message which 1 think invites a proliferation. In any case, since it is so early in the session I will give the benefit of the doubt to the advocate in the circumstances.
The House has heard the motion. It cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 15, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by Miss Jewett and seconded by Mr. Knowles. Shall I read it?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, ! rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Imperial Oil, which is the largest oil company in Canada, is 70 per cent owned by the American multinational Exxon; given the fact that that company has already shown that it has no desire to serve the interests of Canadians, as evidenced by the transfer by Exxon of Venezuelan oil which was intended for Canada during the crisis in Iran; and given the close links which seem to exist between the government and the Progressive Conservative Party, on one hand, and Imperial Oil, on the other hand, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle):
That the House ask the Prime Minister to state immediately the reasons which have led the cabinet to approve the Imperial Oil takeover of Petrole Moderne Ltee, a wholesaler of oil products for independent retailers, thereby increasing foreign control and more particularly that of Imperial Oil over the oil industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion may be put for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an extremely urgent matter.
As the mandate of the government is that of a minority government, and as we could soon find ourselves in the midst of an election campaign; as all hon. members who have lived through an election know that campaigns are unduly long; as there is no permanent voters' list and as the Chief Electoral Officer has already submitted a study suggesting solutions to that problem, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster):
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be authorized to study the various means by which the time span required before holding a federal general election in Canada could be shortened, and more particularly, to look into the advisability of setting up a system for updating the voters' list on a continuous basis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a very urgent matter.
Since the strike in the port of Montreal has been going on for several months, as a result of which supplies for our flour mills have gone up in price and feed grains for agricultural needs are several dollars more a ton, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House order the federal Minister of Labour to spare no effort in speeding up settlement of that conflict, and to report to the House without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 15, 1979


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: I wish to move the following motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that in the areas of health, safety and environment in the workplace there is, at the federal level, administrative confusion, weak law enforcement, lack of initiatives and political game-playing while Canada loses 80 million working days a year due to health, safety and environmental problems-six times that lost by strikes and lockouts-1 move, seconded by the member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Prime Minister either broaden the terms of reference of the special committee on nuclear energy to include environment or set up a special committee on the environment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEATING OIL SUPPLY THIS WINTER-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the major oil companies have refused to bid on heating oil supplies for the North Shore district Roman Catholic Separate School Board, due to the uncertainty of oil supplies, and considering that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has not established the energy supplies allocation board by appointing the people to serve on it, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner);
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have this matter investigated immediately, to determine the heating oil supply situation for this winter, with a view to taking action to ensure that there are adequate heating oil supplies for Canadians this winter.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
_______________165
Oral Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT


CALL FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the increasing rumours since this government took office five months ago of the move by Northern Telecom to the United States, and the decision a week ago Thursday by Northern Telecom to sell their heavy-cable division to Phillips Cables, a British company-Northern Telecom has been heavily supported by the Government of Canada in procurement policy-I move, seconded by the member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House request the government to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act so that their approval of the giveaway of Canadian industry is at least not subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It relates to the reports about the task force recommendation concerning the future of Petro-Canada, but my question is independent of that report itself.
I ask the Prime Minister the following: Can the Prime Minister give this House the assurance that no change will be made to the corporate structure of Petro-Canada without coming before Parliament with amendments to the Petro-Canada Act? In particular, can he give us the assurance that he will not resort to the devious technique proposed by the task force of using Petro-Canada's main subsidiary, Petro-Canada Exploration Inc., as the vehicle for turning the corporation over to private shareholders, thereby avoiding facing Parliament on the issue?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it would be our intention to have parliamentary approval for any significant action that is taken with regard to Petro-Canada.
166

October 15, 1979
Oral Questions


REQUEST NO DECISION MADE WITHOUT AMENDING LEGISLATION
Marc Lalonde: Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advise the House whether this reply means that there will be no change without an amendment to the Petro-Canada Act, that the government agency being considered will be concerned with research and development in frontier areas such as offshore Arctic, and more specifically that if the necessary funds are not coming from the successful operation of Petro-Canada, they will come from public funds, which will increase even more the government's deficit or the taxpayers' burden?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Outremont, the critic on energy, is not the recipient of a draft copy of any task force report, so I can understand his interest in what may be contained in that document.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you lend him a copy, Ed?


Mr. Broadbent:: 1 will send him one.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Possibly he could communicate with the Leader of the New Democratic Party about the brown envelope syndrome.
In all seriousness, the questions posed by the hon. member are, in a sense, premature because the process, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, is that we will receive and table at the earliest possible date the task force report. After that, the government will consider the report and consider the position it will take. The hon. member can rest assured that if there is any legislation to be brought forward, it will be brought forward at an early time so that the hon. member can address these specific questions during the course of that debate.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is missing the point. I am not referring, necessarily, to the task force report; 1 am referring to his statement in September in which he said that he would create a government agency that would be responsible for carrying out frontier exploration. My question relates to his statement of a month ago, not some future task force report that we may or may not see. The question is: Who is going to pay the cost of those expenditures by that government agency? At the present time they are financed by the profitable operations of Petro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I see the spokesmen for Imperial Oil muttering on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Is it not the case, then, that under this proposal the agency he is talking of creating will have to be financed out of taxpayers' dollars, and this means either increasing the government deficit or increasing taxes of Canadians?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the question clearly indicates that the hon. member does not understand exactly what I said or what the process is.


An hon. Member:: Who does?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He would do well to read and to listen to what is being said and written. What I indicated in that press release were the guidelines. The guidelines were set up with respect to the task force's investigations, which clearly indicated certain elements were to remain in the public sector. Once we have received the task force recommendations we will be in a position, on the basis of that advice and our discussion within government, to come forward with specific proposals.
I want to add that the analysis made by the hon. member is simply wrong: it is simply not a valid conclusion to draw with respect to Petro-Canada and what our intentions are concerning the areas of frontier exploration, research and development. The fact is that at the present time, and under the previous administration, very great amounts of money have been put into Petro-Canada-public money, taxpayers' money, enormous amounts of money. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the critic of the Liberal party to tell us how much money is involved with respect to this particular corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister: it relates to the whole question of privatization.
Can the Prime Minister advise who speaks for the government relative to this whole question? We have experienced the President of the Treasury Board in an elaborate press conference speaking on the question of privatization. We have observed the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the other place answering similar questions with regard to the whole question of privatization. We have seen some vigilante committees of the Conservative party. Who does speak for the government on this important question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I speak for the government on this question, the Minister of State for Economic Development speaks for the government on this question, and the President of the Treasury Board speaks for the government on this question. Unlike the previous government, we all say the same thing.
October 15, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the Prime Minister say that he speaks for the government. Perhaps he will enlighten the House. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated in the Senate the other day that the provinces may very well be entertained as purchasers of some of these Crown corporations. The President of the Treasury Board, in his elaborate press conference two weeks ago, indicated the government would not entertain bids from the provinces with respect to the purchase of these corporations. What is the policy of the government with respect to this question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to suggest to members opposite that if they want reliable advice on what is said in the other place, they might want to consult Senator Everett.
I might also point out that what the President of the Treasury Board and what the Minister of State for Economic Development reaffirmed is that it would be the preference of this government not to have agencies privatized by the federal government pass to provincial hands. That would be the preference, but there would be no prohibition: that was the statement by both ministers.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that hardly clarifies the situation. Does the Prime Minister not blanch at the prospect of the provinces submitting bids and purchasing all our profitable Crown corporations, while the federal government hangs on to those which do not make a profit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Unlike members opposite, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not blanch at the prospect of change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETRO-CANADA FUTURE OF CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. He just said that he, appropriately, speaks for the government in these matters. Considering that in a Gallup poll that came out last week, once again the vast majority of Canadians indicated that they do not want Petro-Canada dismantled, and considering that his party in the election on May 22 obtained only 36 per cent of the popular vote and that he, as Prime Minister, noted that he wants to govern according to the wishes of the majority, something he stated publicly, does he in any sense consider that he has a mandate from the people of Canada to dismantle Petro-Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this government will not be governing in accordance with Gallup polls. We will be governing in accordance with what we think the requirements of the country place before us.


An hon. Member:: What about Parliament?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 can understand why Liberal members would be asking about Parliament, since they only recently discovered it. As I indicated earlier today, there will be no significant action with regard to Petro-Canada without the approval of Parliament. We believe it is our responsibility, as a government with a mandate for change, to bring before the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada proposals that will allow us to carry on more effectively in a number of domains, including the relation of the state and the citizens of Canada to ownership of the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada.

We shall be receiving later today-and I hope to be able to table officially, later in the day-a final report from the task force established to look into the question of Petro-Canada. As the minister has indicated, once that report has been tabled in the House-and it will be tabled immediately upon receipt- the government will want to review that report and consider its position. I hope there will be an opportunity for members of all parties to consider that final report, to consider their positions and then to consider proposals the government might bring forward.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister has implicitly acknowledged that the vast majority of the people of Canada are clearly on the other side of the issue than the one he is on: 1 take that to be the clear implication of his answer. 1 put that aspect to one side, though, and would like to ask him whether he accepts the principle that in breaking up Petro-Canada the private sector should be allocated that which is profitable and the public sector, paid for by the taxpayers, should assume responsibility for the high-cost exploration and research development work which it is likely will never be profitable or, if it is, will only be profitable very much in the long run.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Government of Canada has been paying for that kind of activity for some time under existing arrangements. I read in the newspapers that a report will be coming forward to me later today which will open a wide range of opportunities for individual Canadians to take part directly, as owners, in the Canadian petroleum industry. My government will naturally consider a proposal of that kind very seriously.


John Edward Broadbent: With all due respect, the people of Canada now are shareholders in Petro-Canada: every Canadian owns Petro-Canada right now. In the days when the right hon. member was leader of the opposition, he used to castigate the former prime minister when he did not answer the question put to him. I suggest to him, now, that he did not answer the question which was asked.
The question concerned the principle of division. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that whatever course of action the government does propose with regard to Petro-Canada, it will not accept the principle that the private sector should be given that which is profitable, or potentially profitable, and that the people of Canada should be saddled with long-range public debts?

October 15, 1979
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member is asking me to rule out the possibility of the people of Canada taking a direct ownership role in the direction of a major corporation. I will not, of course, rule out that principle.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has stated that he takes full responsibility for questions concerning privatization, I would address my question to him. It concerns recent newspaper reports which have indicated that the Conservative party has raised questions about the future role of the Canada Development Corporation, a corporation which has established a solid record of achievement since its inception.
Do the committee's recommendations constitute government policy? Are we, for example, to assume that the CDC is to be among those additional Crown corporations which the President of the Treasury Board states are being reviewed for sale?


Charles Joseph Clark: Again, if I can count on the newspapers, 1 have most recently heard of that proposal coming from the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre. But there was, as 1 understand it, a document prepared by a working group of my caucus which did consider the question of the CDC. That paper, as well as other material prepared by our caucus, will naturally be considered by the government when we determine to which corporations we might apply the principle of privatization.
who is responsible for economic development in Canada, and it concerns the development of Canadian aeronautics within an industrial strategy.
In view of the phenomenal success of Canadair since its acquisition by the previous government-and I take this opportunity to congratulate its president, Mr. Fred Kearns, and all the employees involved for this success, which was evidenced once again by the announcement of an expansion of $25 million for the tailpiece of the Boeing 767 and the CL 215 tanker, the manufacture of a simulator and the renewal of Department of National Defence material-does the government consider it timely to sell this important economic sector to the private industry? If so, when will this be done and does the government intend to establish a joint aeronautics corporation in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we clearly showed that this is one of the corporations on the list of those for which we are considering having privatization. Is this the right expression?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: This is the right word in French? Thank you. This corporation is on the list of agencies for which we are considering privatization. We have published a list to try to create a real demand in the private sector for the corporations mentioned.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that he has assumed responsibility for all questions relating to privatization, I remain somewhat confused about who is responsible for questions regarding the Canada Development Corporation. The senator who is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce issued a press release attempting to clarify which Crown corporations report to which minister of state, but the Canada Development Corporation is not among them. Who is the nexus in this House between the ministry and the Canada Development Corporation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Development Corporation reports to this House through the Minister of Finance.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Marcel-Claude Roy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister,
[Mr. Broadbent.J
During the negotiations for the transfer of Canadair to the eventual purchaser, will the government guarantee that the funds for research, design, development and planning are maintained and will not be transferred outside Quebec in the case of Canadair?


Charles Joseph Clark: I can assure the hon. member that this will be a major consideration.
* *
*


PRICING PRACTICES OF OIL MULTINATIONALS
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Wednesday, 1 asked the minister if he intended to launch a full investigation into the pricing practices of oil multinationals, in view of evidence of gouging in Nova Scotia by Imperial Oil. The minister indicated that his department was constantly reviewing the area and that he knew of no such evidence.
Last Thursday I presented the minister with a copy of a decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in this matter, a
October 15, 1979

copy of which 1 have in my hand. In view of this evidence, is the minister now prepared to launch a full-scale investigation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for letting me have that rather lengthy judgment for my weekend reading, but I want to tell him that I think it would have been more appropriate for him and his colleagues to raise this matter with our predecessor government, because it took place some two years ago when the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister of this country.
My understanding of that judgment is that it is a legal interpretation with respect to charges to be made to the power corporation in question. The fact is that after the conclusion of that decision which was against Imperial, the decision in fact being in favour of the power corporation, they have continued their relationship with that company and seem to be satisfied with the result of that particular decision.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement on Thursday by the minister that there is close consultation between the members of the cabinet, is the minister aware of other evidence of nefarious pricing practices which are known to his colleagues, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, recently, the Minister of National Revenue; and, if so, is the minister now prepared to ask his department to collaborate with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of National Revenue and undertake a full-scale investigation of these practices by oil companies?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last week that we have a process in place by which we monitor the question of profits with respect to pricing matters and keep a very close eye on it with respect to the operation of the department and the oil import compensation fund, amongst other things. We are always vigilant with respect to pricing.
I know my two colleagues referred to by the hon. member are carrying out their responsibilities. There is collaboration and co-operation in every respect but if the hon. member wants to make broad, sweeping allegations without substantiation under the protection of the House of Commons, he should consider exactly what he is doing, go outside the House and make specific accusations so that we can take the matter up with the appropriate authorities.


SUPPLY OF GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL THIS WINTER
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given National Energy Board estimates that in Ontario gasoline reserves are down 18 per cent and heating oil reserves are down 20 per cent over the same period last year, at which time there was a very tight supply situation, can the minister assure the House that there will be no shortages of these commodities to consumers in Ontario this winter? If he cannot, can he tell us what contingency plans have been put in place?
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question because it is a matter of serious concern to all of us. We have been watching the situation very closely over the summer months and are constantly watching developments with respect to supply. Our present information is that we will be able to get through the winter. This has been a very fragile situation. 1 do not want in any way to mislead the House.


Marc Lalonde: No problem.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal critic keeps interjecting. I wish he had interjected when he was in the cabinet. If he had, we would not be in the position we are in today.
1 simply point out that we are in a fragile situation. Hopefully, we will make it through the winter. We will continue to monitor, and we hope there will not be any exceptional or unusual interruption of supply. As the hon. member will know, there is available to us a number of possibilities both on a voluntary and a mandatory basis in the event there is any shortage; but we are continuing to monitor and watch the situation and I assure the hon. member that I will give this matter continuing interest and concern.


Marc Lalonde: That is about all you do, watch.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, those bland assurances are small comfort to consumers in Ontario. I asked what contingency plans are in place.
In view of the fact that for the past six years the combines investigation branch has been investigating oil companies on the suspicion that they have been manipulating supply and price in Canada, and given this most recent revelation of potential shortages, will the minister instruct the NEB to make public these reports so that we may judge for ourselves what the real cause of this shortage is?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, responsibility with respect to the investigation which is taking place does not lie with me, but with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Breau:: He is not in the inner cabinet.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member has made reference to an investigation which is going on. His leader has referred to it as well. That investigation is proceeding, and when a conclusion is arrived at we anticipate that it will be made public.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the disastrous effects of the bridge-ramming in Vancouver harbour on Friday night and the effect that will have on the capacity of the port of Vancouver, which will be cut by 15 per cent, can

October 15, 1979
Oral Questions
the minister tell the House what measures he is taking to preserve Canada's international reputation for delivering grain?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reply to this very important question, and I appreciate the motion under Standing Order 43 which was moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
I have been in touch with officials of the CNR and the Canadian Wheat Board, and as of this point in time the CNR has requested and received tenders for the repair of the bridge. It appears that a contract will be awarded some time this afternoon. In the meantime, other contingency measures, such as the moving of grain down the BCR, are being put into place. It is going to affect some 3,000 cars a month, but we intend to utilize the South Shore to a greater extent. We hope to utilize the port of Prince Rupert to a much greater extent.
Also, discussions will be held with the officials of labour. Because of the inconvenience and the additional costs, we are hoping there will be utmost co-operation between labour groups so that we can ensure sufficient labour capacity to put on additional hours. I think the Canadian Wheat Board at this very moment is meeting and putting some contingency plans in place. It is the number one item on the agenda. I want to compliment both Canadian National and the Canadian Wheat Board for their prompt action in this unfortunate incident.


SUPPLY OF HEATING OIL FOR SCHOOL BOARDS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I want to ask him if he is aware of the fact that the North Shore District Separate School Board at Blind River, Ontario, has put out tenders calling for heating oil for this winter but that all major oil companies have refused to bid on it. Is the minister aware of this situation, and what action will he take?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have to be quite frank and say that I am not aware of that exact circumstance, but I would be glad to receive particulars from the hon. member and I will investigate what is happening and see what can be done.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that he is in a fragile position and that fuel oil is in short supply this winter. Can he explain why he has not appointed members to the energy supply allocation board to deal with the problem?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Because of the fact we are in the process of planning for this winter, we are indicating that we think we are going to be able to make it through this winter, with respect to

this matter, on a voluntary basis and other initiatives that might be taken by the government.
As the hon. member knows, we have reduced our exports of light crude to the United States in order to better handle the circumstances in Canada during the course of this winter. We have also taken other initiatives. I have asked NEB to look into the whole question of the allocation on the interprovincial pipeline and to let me know what their recommendations are with respect to the type of allocation that is made. Until now it has been on an historical basis, as the hon. member knows, and we are taking these initiatives.
The purpose of meeting the requirements of this year again reiterate the fact that, while the situation is fragile, we are hoping that we will get through this winter and be able to carry on expanding our supply situation in Canada and carry out the terms of our national energy policy with which this government wants to make progress. I hope the hon. member will allow me to deal with these matters and will bring to my attention these circumstances so I can look at each individual case.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the question asked by my colleague to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The commission scolaire regionale de FOutaouais has just faced similar difficulties because normally it always got its supplies around the end of September and asked for bids from the four large companies. This year, only one company made a bid, and it is 30 per cent higher than last year, in order to meet the fuel needs.
Considering that this happened in the national capital area and that the minister has his office in the very heart of Hull, thus being supposedly aware of the problems, I wonder if he would be prepared to make an inquiry, precisely to know why a limited number of companies answered the tenders put out by the commission scolaire regionale de FOutaouais. It seems it is a problem which multiplies throughout the province and throughout Canada.
I wonder if the minister wants to make an inquiry on that matter, namely, to see whether there is a monopoly situation or not.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of those circumstances and of several others. I am aware of a number of allegations that have been made to me and to the government about it, and I have referred these matters to
October 15, 1979

the director of investigation in the competition bureau who has reported back to me that, in respect of the difficulties of obtaining evidential proof and motivation that is necessary to prove in a court of law respecting what 1 consider some rather large gaps in the Combines Investigation Act, he is almost powerless to deal with the situation that exists now.
As I understand that act, one has to have proof in regard to price-fixing in such a manner that it would not be applicable where there is a shortage of supply only or that the supplier would be able to allege that that is the reason for it. Under those circumstances, the director, who has far more experience in this than I have, has indicated to me that under the relevant section, or what he considers to be the relevant section of the act, we are pretty powerless to move on it.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. 1 was not referring so much to price-fixing but I was wondering, rather, how it is that four companies always used to bid when the Outaouais regional school board called for tenders and that this year, probably because this phenomenon is also taking place elsewhere, perhaps fuel oil is being distributed in a somewhat less equitable way; I do not know. That is what 1 want to know. Why is there only one company instead of four? Here again, I am told that this is going on pretty well everywhere.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The answer is pretty obvious. There is no law requiring somebody to put in a bid for an invitation to tender.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Certainly if there was some way in which I could utilize the Combines Investigation Act and have an investigation under it carried out and attempt to do something under these circumstances, believe me, 1 would. But, as 1 say, we have already referred a great number of similar inquiries, and 1 hope the hon. member is not blaming me for the deficiencies in that act.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it relates to a statement he issued on October 10 in response to the resignation of the commissioner of the Yukon territory.
According to the minister's own statement, the commissioner did not in any way disagree with him that responsible government should precede any move toward provincehood. That being the case, I wonder if the minister would be so kind as to take the House into his confidence and to explain to us
Oral Questions
precisely what were the main points of disagreement between himself and the commissioner of the Yukon which led to her resignation.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the hon. member again what is the intention of the government. The Yukon territorial government is a body of elected people who have the responsibility to look after the day to day affairs of the territory.
With regard to the commissioner, there were certain responsibilities which the commissioner had held previously which, under the terms of the Yukon Act, could be transferred to the elected representatives in the Yukon. The former commissioner felt that the move toward responsible government was coming too quickly. We do not believe that it was coming too quickly; in fact, we favour the elected people of the Yukon obtaining more responsibility.
What should also be stated clearly to the hon. member is that we have indicated that, in terms of provincial status, this is not a move toward provincial status in the sense that the Prime Minister clearly indicated during the election campaign that responsibility would be transferred to the Yukon and that after full consultation with the various groups, with a responsible government in place, the people of the Yukon would be asked for their opinion on whether or not provincial status was agreeable to them. That was the position of the government, and we have not changed it.


B. Keith Penner: Quite apart from the minister's explanation of what constitutes responsible government, can he confirm to the House that the main concern of the commissioner of the Yukon territory was her ability to carry out her statutory obligations to the Government of Canada and to the taxpayers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, that is not correct, Mr. Speaker. I have stated in the House, and so did the Prime Minister last week, that the statutory obligations have not been violated; those responsibilities are retained by the federal government. There has not been an amendment to the Yukon Act, but the Yukon Act allows these transfers. In fact, 1 should indicate to the hon. member that the request came from the people of the Yukon, specifically the elected members. It is also included in the position of the small Liberal minority in the House in the Yukon; and the point of contention here is not responsible government but, rather, when it should take place. This government is committed to transferring that responsibility to those who are elected.

October 15, 1979
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Hon. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it arises from a call which I received from a concerned constituent. This constituent pointed out that during the course of the election campaign, the Conservative leader went across this country saying that it would be his intention, if the government was formed by his party, to put in place a mortgage interest deduction program which would make housing more affordable and more available to the average Canadian. This constituent also went on to point out that since the election of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. If the hon. member for London West has a question, he will have to put the question.


J. Judd Buchanan: Since the election, Mr. Speaker, the interest cost of carrying a first mortgage in Canada has risen by an unprecedented 25 per cent. The question is, Mr. Speaker, since the cost of carrying a $50,000 mortgage has gone up by $ 150-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to put a question?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the mortgage program put in place by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, will give $32 a month rebate. How does this make housing more available and more affordable to the average Canadian?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, after the introduction and the passage, if the House decides to pass the proposal for a tax credit on mortgage interest and on property taxes, housing in this country will be less expensive than it now is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should first like to congratulate the minister on his new role in government, and I would not want him to feel that we are neglecting him.
In view of the fact that the government of Newfoundland is now considering deterrent fees in financing medicare in the province, would the minister indicate to this House what specific action he plans to take under the Medical Care Act to

ensure that Newfoundlanders have universal access to medical services in their province?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his best wishes and for his question. The hon. member may be aware that at the recent federal-provincial conference with provincial health ministers we established a review of our medical care services in the country under the auspices of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. That report is due in the springtime. At that time recommendations will be coming to all members of this House, and I hope hon. members will give them the serious consideration they deserve.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the fact that a plan has been put into effect to study the future, but I would like to suggest that once the gate is open and the cows are out, it is too late to close the gate. In view of the fact that in addition to the situation in Newfoundland, over 40 per cent of the doctors in Prince Edward Island have opted out of medicare and 18 per cent to 20 per cent of doctors in Ontario have done likewise, will the minister now bring legislation into this House to reverse this serious cutback in health services in Canada and allow the former 50-50 formula to be reintroduced in order to avoid the current crisis?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the study that Mr. Justice Hall is undertaking is rooted in the principles of not only the Medical Care Act of 1968 but, indeed, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of 1958. Those are the two basic acts that underpin the whole of medicare. Those two acts also involve fundamentally four principles, and those principles are reiterated in the Emmett Hall commission terms of reference. When its report comes forward it will be making recommendations specifically with respect to opting out, extra billing and guidelines to make sure that those principles are achieved.
I am sure there is no member in this House who would like us to proceed without appropriate guidelines. Those guidelines were undertaken by the previous minister, but were not forthcoming to the ministers in the provinces. Every provincial minister with the exception of one indicated that the study was appropriate. I believe it is appropriate and I think Canadians think it is appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON USER FEES FOR MEDICARE
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, it is all very nice to have one more royal commission after a "tiny perfect" federal-provincial conference, but I am very disappointed with the answer of the new Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would like to ask him if he will impose, in light of what has just happened in Newfoundland, a moratorium on user-fee charges in the province until the publication of the Hall report.
October 15, 1979


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question. Indeed, my job would have been an awful lot easier in that regard, with relation to her question, if she had carried out her promise to the provinces to provide them with guidelines respecting those principles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: There was an undertaking of the former minister and, indeed, the former government to do so. They did not do so, and the purpose of the Hall commission is to provide this House with those guidelines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, when we had the transition of power in June, 1 offered the new minister what 1 think all Canadians want, which is a complete non-partisan approach to save the best institution in Canada for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: The guidelines were undertaken in March. Why does the minister not send them to the provinces? Why does he hide behind a royal commission?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I again thank the hon. member very much for the question. If, indeed, a non-partisan approach is available, then I would be the first one to accept it. Secondly, those guidelines which the former minister indicated were available were clearly not available to the provinces and, indeed, not available publicly. If she says they were, then I think perhaps she ought to consult the previous notes she had.


HARBOURS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport or the Minister of State (Transport). Will the minister indicate the status of the National Harbours Board call for proposals to operate the new container pier at Fairview Cove in the port of Halifax-Dart-mouth and at the same time would he tell the House whether longshoremen, marine workers and others will have an opportunity to make representations to the National Harbours Board before a decision is made on proposals?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the public call for proposals to provide an operator for the new Fairview Cove container pier at Halifax, one proposal was forthcoming. It is now under investigation by the National Harbours Board, which has the responsibility for naming the operator. I feel it would be very useful for the longshoremen and all the workers at the port and, indeed, all members of Parliament for the Halifax area to have an opportunity to have input to the National Harbours Board
Oral Questions
in respect of more efficient operations of that port, and I will be very happy to arrange such an opportunity for them.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the increasing interest by Canadian home owners in conserving energy and reducing their heating bills by insulating their homes, it is particularly important that consumers have confidence in the safety of the products they use.
We now have a situation where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation first withdrew approval from certain products after flammability tests and then reinstated that approval, while the doubts continue. Is the minister in a position to make a clear statement about safety standards?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in so far as they affect my responsibilities, the member knows, or I suggest she should know in her position, that the whole question of standards in regard to the flammability of cellulose insulation is a matter that was considered by the previous administration for a period of something like two years.
This year we have had to tackle the subject by transferring the standards which were utilized by CMHC, the standards set by the Canadian Government Standards Bureau and the same standards and the same tests that have been in operation in the United States for, I believe, about three years, into the Hazardous Products Act so that we can introduce some meaningful enforceability of those standards. The orders in council for doing that were passed last week.


TANKER TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL ON WEST COAST
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very much, at times, like the Queen Charlotte Islands, at this end of the House.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the complete opposition in British Columbia to further transport of crude oil along our coast by tanker, given the National Energy Board's refusal to examine the Foothills' application, and given the government's statement in the September 28 aide memoire to the U.S. government indicating that the NEB processes would be necessary for Canadian approval, can the Prime Minister indicate to the House if a supplementary aide memoire has been sent to the U.S. government indicating that this type of environmental and economic blackmail is unac-

October 15, 1979
Oral Questions
ceptable and that further time is required for our regulatory process to assess the options placed before us?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the very strong opposition in British Columbia, an opposition which I share, to tanker traffic. My understanding is that the Foothills' application will be heard by the National Energy Board.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State (Transport). Before doing so, I would like to offer my congratulations and good wishes to him in his appointment at least to the part-time cabinet. The throne speech debate reads in part:
My government will ensure an even flow of work to Canadian shipyards-
Then it says we will develop an effective Canadian merchant fleet. Will the minister be elaborating on this promise during the Speech from the Throne debate and, if not, when can we expect some details on this proposal?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick for his good wishes, and congratulate him on his parttime occupation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Robert Howie: Cabinet has given approval in principle to proceed with the gradual development of a Canadian deep sea fleet and to develop measures designed to make Canadian shipowners more competitive . Suggestions have been received from the industry and labour and these various measures are being studied in order to identify the most effective methods of assistance.
Further consultations will take place in the next two or three months in order to get views from all interested groups. Measures retained will likely be of an incentive nature, rather than direct subsidies, leaving the decision-making to the private sector. After discussion and identification of the most appropriate measures, the government will take appropriate steps to implement them, including legislation if required. I thank the hon. member for his question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my part-time position busy enough so that the Prime Minister will give the minister a full portfolio. Will the minister tell the House exactly when we can expect to receive the appropriate legislation to which he has referred? Will it be this year, or next year?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate legislative measures are in the process of study and consideration and an
[Mr. Fulton.J
ultimate decision on their introduction and the manner in which we proceed gradually in the direction of the deep sea fleet depends upon the response to consultations that are now under way.
I can assure the hon. member that I will give him ample notice so that he may make a full contribution to the subject, which would be most welcome.


POINT OF ORDER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) earlier in the question period, if I heard him correctly, said that he planned to table the report of the task force which was looking into the question of Petro-Canada. As I did not hear him precisely, would he clarify his answer? Did the Prime Minister say that he would table the document if he gets it, or that he would definitely be tabling the document?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise on a point of order, because I will have to seek the unanimous consent of the House at a later time in the day for permission to return to the place in the proceedings that will allow us to table the report, which I have not received. According to my understanding, that report is not in translation, it will be available to the task force in both French and English later this day and it will be made available to both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and myself later in the afternoon, probably very late in the afternoon. It would be our intention to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the report, in both official languages, at that time.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, would the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicate to the House whether he has an intention of making a statement, or will he merely table the report?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it will simply be my intention to table the report, without a statement.


MR. WILSON-CORRECTION OF ANSWER IN &quot;HANSARD&quot;
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to correct my answer to a question by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on Friday. I stated at that time, as it is recorded on page 123 of Hansard, October 12:
-as far as we are aware no contracts have been cancelled.
Since making that statement, my officials have made me aware of three contracts which have been cancelled, one in the amount of $4.2 million and two other smaller ones, one
October 15, 1979

contract for approximately $350,000 and the other one for approximately $60,000.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, copies of the report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT
Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an act to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act.


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

Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.


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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59, I move that the estimate of sums required for service to Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, and that Supplementary Estimates (A), 1979-80, tabled on October 11, 1979, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as indicated in these lists attached hereto.
Estimates
[Editor's Note: The lists referred to are as follows.]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Communications Votes 1,5, 10 and 15
Secretary of State Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, L80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 110 and 115 To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, 20, 25, 30, L35, L40, 45 and 50 National Defence Votes 1,5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Economic Development Vote 1 Finance Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 35
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, L40, 45,
50, 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75
National Revenue Votes 1, 5 and 10
Privy Council Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 50, 55 and 60 To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1 and 5
National Health and Welfare Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 Public Works Votes 45, 50, L55 and L60 To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1,5, 10, 15, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, 65, L70, L75 and L80 To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 Solicitor General Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and L30 To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Labour Votes 1,5, 10 and 15
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament Votes 5 and 10
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Finance Vote 25
Governor General and Lieutenant Governors Vote 1 Industry, Trade and Commerce Vote 80 Parliament Vote 1 Privy Council Votes 1,5, 15 and 30
Science and Technology Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 Secretary of State Vote 105 Supply and Services Votes 1, 5, L10 and 15 Treasury Board Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, L70, L75, L80, L85 and 90
Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 65, 70, L75, 80 and 85 To the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines Privy Council Vote 25
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and elections Privy Council Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Regional Economic Expansion Votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, L20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Post Office Votes 1 and 5

October 15, 1979
Estimates
Transport Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, L45, L50, L55, 60, 65, L75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, LI 10, LI 15, 120, 125 and 130 To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 15a, L21a, 35a and 50a To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Communications Vote 10a Secretary of State Votes 20a and 45a To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes LI5a, LI6a and 30a To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Finance Votes 7a and 40a Industry, Trade and Commerce Vote 55 To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Fisheries and Oceans Vote 10a
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 5a Public Works Vote 51a
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 65a and 78a To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Solicitor General Votes 5a and LI9a To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes 15a and 20a To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Supply and Services Vote L6a
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 15a and L36a Public Works Votes 40a and 85a To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Transport Votes 60a, 90a and 107a


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the comment made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker), can we have a clear and unequivocal confirmation or otherwise from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) that he takes his responsibility for making recommendations on these estimates to Parliament?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the matter had been dealt with rather conclusively by the Chair on Friday. A parliamentarian of the standing of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras) should know what that position is. The situation now, sir, is that before this House there stands a motion in my name to refer the estimates to the committees which were established by this House, by consent, last week. That motion is neither debatable nor amendable. 1 suggest we get on with dealing with the motion so that the committees can get to work.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has referred to a procedural ruling made by Your Honour, which we accept. He has proposed that the estimates go to committee. We will deal with that motion when it is put to the House.

Let me tell my hon. friend, however, that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) will not be able to escape his political and parliamentary responsibilities in recommending to the House of Commons expenditures of over $1 billion. He will not get away in the House with the comment he made to the press, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen, to the effect that he was not going to recommend programs or figures that he had no hand in drawing up. If that is his attitude, he is going to have a tough time getting these estimates through the House.


Walter David Baker: Stop threatening.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 59, the motion which has now been moved by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) is properly before the House. The form of the motion is the rather standard one. Since these estimates have to be moved to various committees, which has been the practice of the House in the past, rather than using the time of the House to read the various estimates and votes and the particular committees to which he referred, a list has customarily been attached to that effect. Therefore, I would take it that the sense of the House is that the motion is in the usual form, and it is the intention of the House to deal with that aspect as though the list attached to the motion had been read with the motion.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a serious petition to the House of Commons, signed during the past two weeks by more than 100,000 Canadians, which urges this House to instruct the government in unequivocal terms to maintain Petro-Canada as it now is, for the benefit of the people of Canada from coast to coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Trudeau) (p. 37).
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, for all those who were here on Friday during the last five minutes I dealt
October 15, 1979

with congratulations, and now I would like to go into the crux of my reply to the Speech from the Throne. I want to thank my leader and my party for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House-it is an honour for the riding of Argenteuil that their representative be chosen for such an occasion.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Argenteuil has been part of the history of Canada since the beginning of confederation, and judging by recent events, Argenteuil will be heard from even more this year at this time of crisis on national unity.
But furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this riding has lot to offer in terms of culture and economic development potential. The riding of Argenteuil is divided into five distinct areas: first, the Petite Nation where unemployment at times reaches the scandalous rate of 33 per cent; that is why, Mr. Speaker, I find the Speech from the Throne of the Progressive Conservatives very conservative in its measures to improve the unemployment situation. Then there are Lachute, Brownsburg and the surrounding areas which used to be the industrial nerve centre in Argenteuil and which are being eroded to the point of nearly disappearing. All sorts of corporations are leaving behind huge, unproductive and empty plants. In this regard also, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the lack of incentive given in the Speech from the Throne to small and medium business which in my riding is the only means of survival in the industrial sector.

The region of St. Adolphe, where nature is at its best throughout the year, has become a natural paradise for tourism all year long. It is so agreeable that both the leader of the national Liberals and the leader of the provincial Liberals has taken up residence in this beautiful sector of Argenteuil.
I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne that provision was made for a strategy to be developed, but I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, that at a stage where the provinces are concerned, we are only talking of strategy when we all know it is time for action. [DOT]
[ Translation]
Mirabel! Mirabel! I am pleading directly with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), Mr. Speaker. It is unthinkable that such a potentially rich area should be paralysed because of administrative bureaucracy. I am therefore asking the minister to involve himself directly in this matter so that a rapid transit system can be developed between Montreal and Mirabel which would benefit over a million people and would facilitate the development of this airport complex which is the gateway to North America. The economic expansion of Mirabel would also benefit the Oka and St. Placid region.
The Address-Mr. Gourd
Mr. Speaker, that is the brief overview of the situation in Argenteuil that I wanted to give the House. 1 am convinced that, the government willing, 1 will not have to quote what the hon. member for Chapleau said in this House on August 16, 1946. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), both in his press conference and here in this House, spoke of co-operation with all members of Parliament.
I wish to congratulate the government which is concerned with the fate of our cultural industries. Unfortunately I note, Mr. Speaker, that such concern is misdirected because it is centred on the accessory and ignores the essential. Who are, in the first place, our cultural producers? The authors. Now, those authors are barely protected under a single law already more than half a century old. Nowhere in the throne speech has the government shown that it is fully aware of that issue when throughout Canada the authors are loudly demanding to the Prime Minister himself that vigorous political action be undertaken.
What is hindering the settlement of the matter? First, an interdepartmental committee met without knowing exactly what it was going to do, because nobody assumed responsibility. Then, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) who is responsible for the administration of the Copyright Act is not concerned with the interests of the authors, since he is dealing with those who exploit the works of the authors and not with the authors themselves.
The solution, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple, and 1 fully agree with the many authors and artists who are begging the government to transfer immediately responsibility for that sector from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the Department of the Secretary of State which is in a better position to undertake as soon as possible the most important review for safeguarding the Canadian culture, that is, of the Copyright Act.
Mr. Speaker, what the government is prepared to do for our Canadian artists seems to me to be too little and too late, and by breaking up Loto Canada it is missing an opportunity to support them since part of the revenues of that agency could have been used to subsidize our artists. Mr. Speaker, my slogan throughout the campaign was "Speak up, Argenteuil", and that is exactly what 1 intend to do in the face of this government which, from the start, seems at a loss to know what to do with its power and already shows indications of growing dullness.
1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, why this government of our Tory friends, who fiercely denounced the budget introduced by the former finance minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), has not found time in four months to produce any fresh ideas. Instead, it has raised interest rates once again to penalize the population and help the big and powerful friends of the Tories grow wealthier. True, 1 was about to forget the provision to help landlords, only to the detriment of tenants. These are the not so fresh ideas, Mr. Speaker. We

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Binks
have in front of us a government of novices whose internal wranglings are paralysing the good administration of our country. Those super-ministers of pseudo super departments, who became super-salesmen, proved to us who they really were with the sale of Candu to Argentina, which once again, Mr. Speaker, will penalize the Canadian public.
I cannot refrain from saying a few words about the embassy case at a time when all nations are attempting to solve the problems faced by Israel and Egypt. Our government, Mr. Speaker, is taking up the whole matter again only for tiny political gains. Those are, Mr. Speaker, the views of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) on a strong and respected Canada. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as the member for Argenteuil in the opposition, my intention is to observe carefully the sayings and doings of this administration and to look after the interests of my constituency.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ken Binks (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House of Commons. In the past you accomplished your historical duties in such a way that you added dignity and respect to the parliamentary process. I join other members in congratulating also the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I wish them much success in their careers in the House and in the service of the public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with what I can assure you is a great deal of trepidation but a heart full of pride. Like so many members of this House, and those that have gone before me, I have spent a lifetime in the shadow of the Peace Tower. From the nearest public school to these buildings, our teacher often brought us here to sit in the gallery. My grandfather photographed the great fire of February 1916, and sent photographs of it to the four corners of the world. My uncle welded the gargoyles just beneath the great clock on the Peace Tower itself.
When I was a young man, it was my privilege to work within the walls of this great building for two years as a library assistant in the Parliamentary Library. My wife was the private secretary to the leader of the CCF. She came to the library to borrow a book one day and, needless to say, my love for the Library and, indeed, for the whole institution of Parliament has never diminished. I still have the same faith in and awe for this House of Commons as I did as a schoolboy in the gallery.
[ Translation]
When Mr. Arthur Meighen was asked the secret of his rapid rise in the House of Commons, he would simply reply, "The Parliamentary Library."
[ English]
Senator Gratton O'Leary once wrote that if he were asked by a young member of Parliament for his advice, he would say

unhesitatingly to him, "Study, listen and wear a path to the Parliamentary Library, and reverence always the House of Commons". So for many years I have watched the various Parliaments, our great leaders and the many hundred worthy members who have gone before.
On this auspicious occasion, I say it is an honour for me to represent the electors of Ottawa West, a riding which has been represented by Sir John A. Macdonald and by Sir Robert Borden, to mention only two of the distinguished statesmen who have represented this riding and who have reverenced the House of Commons. I want to thank the people of Ottawa West for sending me here to represent them. I am proud and deeply grateful for this high honour. I will strive to serve them, all of them, in the fullest way.
I wish to pay tribute to the greatest House of Commons man of this generation, and a close personal friend, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. It is not my intention to deliver another eulogy to Mr. Diefenbaker. The Prime Minister already did that beautifully at the graveside in Saskatoon.
When Mr. Diefenbaker made his maiden speech in this House in 1940, we were suffering the very darkest days of the war. What was it that we were fighting for in that war? What was it that so many Canadians laid down their lives for? What is it that has brought so many people to our shores since the war? If we can answer these questions it may help us with the problems we have in dealing with the future course of this country.
Surely the war was fought, great sacrifices made and millions of new people came to live in Canada because our Canadianism is thought to be worth living for, as so many proved that it was worth dying for.
All the people who have come to Canada have come to build, not to destroy. They have come to practice tolerance and not prejudice. We do not have to undo 500 or 1,000 years of injustice here, but in saying this, Mr. Speaker, we will be wise to give deep thought to our essential Canadianism. It was one of Mr. Diefenbaker's greatest gifts that when he spoke about Canadians, they felt two feet taller. There is still room for builders in Canada notwithstanding perplexing problems both domestic and international. There is still room for growth. I disagree with those who say we can no longer grow in Canada.
I believe the reason this party was elected to form the government is that most Canadians still believe this.
There is a danger of taking our country for granted. The government should constantly remind Canadians about their Canadianism. There should be statues here on Parliament Hill of Canadians who have contributed to the glories of Canada, as there should be statues and reminders elsewhere. I would like to see monuments erected near these buildings to C. D. Howe, J. S. Woodsworth, and some of our prime ministers not now honoured, to other Canadians not only in politics but in all fields of endeavour.
We often talk about putting Canadian content into the CBC. We are concerned about the difficulties faced by

October 15, 1979

Canadian writers and artists. It is time to put Canadian content everywhere in this country. Recently, an American teacher visited Kingston. She was a professor of French and Canadian studies in Cleveland and was attending a seminar in the Kingston area this past summer. She was well equipped with the usual tourist brochures when she went hunting for Sir John A. Macdonald's resting place, among other attractions. She said she found the Hockey Hall of Fame and the Steam Museum in five minutes, but it took her nearly Vh hours looking at gravestones to find Sir John's in Cataraqui cemetery, and she only found it by stumbling across it. This American citizen left $10 to help with the upkeep of the grave. She said if the grave of an equally important national figure was located across Lake Ontario on the American side, it would probably be under an eleven-storey monument.
in coming to this House of Commons for the first time, I considered making some remarks about what has happened to the public service and to the city of Ottawa over the past decade by reason of policies which I consider to be wrong, and also to discuss some of the positive steps that I believe should be taken to diversify the national capital area and improve its economic prospects. But I have decided that I will make these statements in this House on another appropriate occasion.
I do want to speak about a matter which arose during and since the election. I refer to the refugee problem. The refugees have been described as boat people. Apart from aboriginal Canadians, there is a sense in which all Canadians throughout the course of our history have been boat people. We are all descended from boat people; in fact, the first boat people here were with Cartier when he sailed up the St. Lawrence.
I am proud to represent so many people in Ottawa who opened not only their hearts but also their pocketbooks to the boat people. In doing so, they have responded to one of the oldest traditions in Canada, that of helping those from other lands to find a new life with us. 1 would hope the government would be able to devise ways and means of coping with the international refugee problem in some permanent way, because I fear that other dictatorships in the South Pacific and elsewhere may use the same means to get rid of dissenters.
Many of our statesmen, artists and writers have attempted to define what it means to be Canadian. Sir Wilfrid Laurier expressed this Canadian identity as follows:

As for me, I do not want French Canadians dominating anybody and I do not want anybody to dominate them. Equal justice, equal rights. It has been written that the grains of sand of the seas have been counted, that not one hair may fall from our head without the intervention of an eternal and wise Providence. Isn't there reason to believe that, when the supreme battle was waged on the Plains of Abraham and we lost. Providence had intended the two races heretofore enemies to live in peace and harmony from then on upon this continent forming a single nation? There-
-said Sir Wilfrid Laurier-
-lies the idea which presided over the creation of Confederation. When the British provinces were united under the same constitution, the then openly admitted hope was to give to all its scattered components the same national ideal, offering the world the image of a nation diverse in its origins upholding
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
among all its elements the respect for family traditions and ethnic pride, but hereafter providing to all a single and common aspiration.

Mr. Speaker, the people living in this country today should be, I repeat, the envy of all. They have better opportunities for full and rewarding lives, more so than ever before, and very few places in the world can match these opportunities. But I say to you, sir, that it will be our responsibility to ensure that Canada and Canadians remain the envy of all.
1 look forward to being a part of this new government which the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said here this morning is a government with a mandate for change. 1 look forward to working under the dynamic leadership of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. We have all inherited a rich endowment of wisdom and nature. May we never forget it. Let us Conservatives remember, as Lord Hailsham so wisely pointed out, that we are not curators of a museum, but cultivators of a garden. [Translation]
In those words, Mr. Speaker, 1 say: Evil be to him who evil thinks.


Mr. Blais:: Would the hon. member permit a question? [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since the new member for Ottawa West (Mr. Binks) has indicated his support for the minorities and for the linguistic diversity within our country, 1 would like to ask the hon. member if he would agree to make representations to his leader in order that the latter address those same representations to the government of the province of Ontario and encourage them to reconsider their decision not to grant the people of Penetanguishene a French high school.


Kenneth C. Binks: Mr. Speaker, I understand that question was raised last week in the House and received an answer then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in following the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Binks), who has just delivered his maiden speech, I should like to congratulate him not only on his election to the House of Commons but on his spirited first appearance in this chamber. At the same time, I should like to congratulate the Speaker on his re-election as Speaker of the House, a re-election which was based upon his performance in the last Parliament, one which was such that his selection was the unanimous choice of this chamber.
The mover (Mr. Fretz) and the seconder (Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan)) of the address performed extremely well and I congratulate them, too. Of course, I congratulate all the new members who have been elected to this chamber, as well as the older members who have survived the election and who once again appear here, as a large number of us do.

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
However, it is not an encouraging period for re-elected members on the other side of the House. It seems that in the selection of his cabinet, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has placed very low priority on service in the House of Commons and a very low priority on a distinguished record in this chamber. How, otherwise, could one explain the exclusion from the cabinet of such persons as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-unfortunately, he is not in the House today-the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and a whole list of members on the other side who, had they been added to the cabinet, would have performed much more capably than those we have witnessed falter through the question period demonstrating their lack of grasp of our procedures?
All of us have come through an election which was conducted under the electoral reforms approved in the last Parliament. Basing my judgment on my experience, the general framework of these reforms, especially the norms applied to spending, collection and assistance from the public treasury in the running of the election, proved to be sound, although there may be changes which ought to be implemented, and added a much needed reform to our electoral system. We on this side welcome the indication made by the Prime Minister, first in the Speech from the Throne and later in his address, that the procedures of the House of Commons are to be examined in the Committee on Procedure and Organization. We on this side will participate constructively in that re-examination and strive to improve the operation of the House where that is possible.
We need, of course, the fresh views brought into the House by new members who sit in this Parliament in all quarters, and I hope the process adopted in the effort to improve our rules will be such that the contribution of new members will be heard and that they will have an opportunity to give expression to fresh and independent opinions after some experience in observing the operations of the House.
1 listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's comments on Parliament. Listening to him, one would almost think that this was the first Parliament of Canada rather than the thirty-first. One got the impression that the world had begun the moment he assumed office. That is not the case, of course. We have a lot of experience in the House of Commons and not all of its operations are bad. I believe we ought not to leave the impression that everything we do is wrong, though there is obviously room for improvement.
The Prime Minister referred to what he called the historic role of Parliament to control the public purse, and went on to say that this role had been eroded by guillotine rules which meant that each year millions of dollars in public spending went unscrutinized and unchallenged. Mr. Speaker, that statement is certainly an indictment of the official opposition, now the government, while they were sitting on this side of the House. "Unscrutinized and unchallenged", the Prime Minister says about spending proposals. We shall show the country, if he was not able to show the country, how that scrutiny can take place under this particular opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will go further and remind the right hon. gentleman that when he talks about the erosion of Parliament, it is an erosion, if that be the case, in which members of the Conservative party participated fully. I say this because I have before me copies of the Journals which show that in 1968 our current rules were adopted unanimously by every member of the House including the Prime Minister's party, led then by the gentleman who is now promoting a new policy for the Prime Minister in the Middle East. So, if there are complaints about the current procedure, let the government take its responsibility for the role members of the Conservative party played in implanting it upon the House of Commons. I shall have more to say about that later, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, the media, especially, are obsessed with the possible length of this Parliament. I am often asked how long the Thirty-first Parliament is going to last. I say that it does not depend mainly upon the opposition; it depends mainly upon the government. It depends on how well and how skilfully the government manages the affairs of this House, how sensitively it reacts to the moods of the House of Commons and how carefully it assesses public opinion in this country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are in for four years.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If it is able to do these things, its prospects for existence are much greater than if the conduct exhibited so far by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) becomes the model for members of the government.
We have before us now a very important issue which will permit the government to show the qualities it wants to bring to bear upon the operation of the business of this House, and that is the matter of Petro-Canada. Here it has an opportunity to demonstrate whether it is willing to conciliate or whether it wishes to facilitate, by its stubborn insistence on an ideological position, its own demise.
We have had a list of bills put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker), and it is interesting to look at it because obviously it is the first result of the long summer. It is a very lengthy list of bills, about 90 in all. We have succeeded, in past sessions, in passing about 40 to 60 bills, and I wonder how this enormous amount of business is to get through the House unless the government proposes to impose upon the House an even more severe form of guillotine to which the Prime Minister took exception in his speech.
The list is lengthy, but unimpressive. It is mainly concerned with administrative matters and is very weak on policy-oriented bills. In fact, many of the bills are drawn from the leftovers or holdovers from the last Parliament of Canada. There are very important omissions. There is no bill on the referendum, which is a remarkable omission. There is no bill on the international economic boycott. Remember the vigour and passion with which hon. members now sitting on the government side demanded that we proceed with a bill dealing with
October 15, 1979

the international economic boycott? There is no mention of it in the list.
There is no mention of a bill on public service staff relations but, of course, there are such urgent matters as income tax international conventions, Montreal and Quebec port wardens, a Canada-France champagne agreement, a migratory birds convention and matters relating to caribou migration. If the Prime Minister was serious about getting 90 bills through the House of Commons, why did he not call Parliament much earlier?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why was Parliament not called? Why have we witnessed the longest adjournment or absence of Parliament probably in the history of Canada or, certainly, in its modern history? This government has taken a very leisurely approach.
Early this year hon. members opposite were clamouring for a budget. They were asking the former minister of finance to bring in another budget following the budget he had brought in in November. Today is October 15, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) has not bestirred himself yet to bring in a budget and we have not been told when that budget will be brought in, except that it will be brought in before Christmas.
There has been absolutely no urgency exhibited by this government in calling Parliament or preparing a legislative program for this House of Commons. Having said that, I want to add a further comment. In the light of that record it ill behooves the government to put pressure on the House of Commons to move quickly. If time were needed and if matters were urgent, then it was open to members of the government to call the House, to have at the present time brought forward its bills and to have had behind them five to eight weeks of legislative work.
We know what the immediate agenda is to be. We have to complete this debate. We have to deal with the budget bills which were uncompleted in the last session. They now become the budget bills of the new government. It will not be the former minister who will move these bills and recommend them to the House; it will be the new Minister of Finance, seconded by a member of this government. This government must get through budget bills. That is a big second item. Maybe, as has been the case in the past, the bringing on of these bills will initiate a very important economic debate. Who knows?
Then we have the spending program of the new government put before the House last Thursday by the President of the Treasury Board. Then we have the first budget, hopefully before Christmas, of the new Minister of Finance. After having dealt with all of these matters, how much more can we do? Maybe the freedom of information bill before Christmas or in the early part of the session, maybe conflict of interest legislation, but let me say that working very hard, in the light of the delay the government has imposed upon this House, it will be very difficult to stack up an impressive list of legislative achievements in the early part of the session.
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
I want to make reference to the spending program, the main estimates and the supplementary estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board. These estimates were tabled unchanged from those which were tabled by the former president of the treasury board. Remember, when they were tabled by the former president, the words of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to the House of Commons in commentary on those estimates? They were "cooked". They were "deceptive". They were "dishonest". We were "concealing things". Lo and behold, despite these strictures, after 4'A months in government the same estimates are brought forward by the new government. Hon. members opposite had plenty of time if they wished to alter those estimates.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege. The distinguished hon. member would not want to misquote me. He referred to Calgary North instead of Calgary South. There are directions in Calgary. I am sure I never at any time referred to those estimates. If I did, I stand corrected. Perhaps the hon. member means Calgary Centre instead of Calgary North.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I obviously would want to accept immediately the words of the hon. member. The hon. member to whom I ought to have referred is the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 certainly would not attribute to the hon. member for Calgary North the reckless remarks which were made by his colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: It
being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p. m.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment at one o'clock I mentioned the estimates that had been tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) last Thursday which have now been referred to the standing committees. In leaving that subject, let me just say that the President of the Treasury Board and the individual ministers who are seeking these expenditures for the public business of Canada will have to take their responsibility before the House of Commons for recommending these estimates before they will receive an easy passage by the House of Commons. We do not intend to vote moneys which ministers do not want, we do not intend to vote moneys which ministers are not prepared to defend, and we do not intend to vote moneys for expenditures for which ministers

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. MacEachen will not take responsibility. I just leave that thought with the President of the Treasury Board with the expectation that upon reflection he will take a more co-operative attitude with the House of Commons as he asks us to vote more than $50 billion for the purposes of the government without being prepared to say to the House that he really wants them and takes responsibility for the amounts of money that are requested. I leave that subject there because it is a matter to which we can return later.
Now I want to say a word about the structure of the cabinet and particularly the fact that the representative of the province of Nova Scotia in the Government of Canada is excluded from the main decision-making body of this country. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) is not a member of the inner cabinet; he is not a member of the main decision-making body of this country. 1 want to tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) that that situation is unacceptable to the province of Nova Scotia, and 1 ask the Prime Minister to restore to Nova Scotia the position in the Government of Canada that it has occupied since confederation.
In my lifetime seats have been occupied in the cabinet by such people as the late J. L. Ilsley, the late Robert Winters and the late George C. Nowlan, and I wonder whether either one of them would have accepted the situation of being left cooling his heels in Ottawa or some other part of Canada while the big boys were in Jasper making the important decisions. That is the question that is agitating the interests of the people in my province and, I am sure, the people who have supported the Progressive Conservative candidates in Nova Scotia in the last election. Why is it that our minister is not in the inner cabinet? Why is it indeed that Newfoundland with seven members in the House of Commons deserves two ministers, one of whom sits in the inner cabinet, and Nova Scotia with 11 members deserves only one minister who is not entitled to sit with the big boys when they make the decisions? I am not complaining about the generous treatment given to Newfoundland, but I am asking that equally generous treatment be given to the historic province of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Speech from the Throne talks about strengthening the mandate of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Well, that is idle talk. The way to strengthen the mandate of that important department is to put the minister in the inner cabinet. The fact that the government, so it is said, has placed such high priority on questions of regional economic expansion and yet has excluded from the decision-making body the Minister of DREE defies description. I ask the government to bring forward their bill which is intended to strengthen the mandate of regional economic expansion and we will use that occasion to urge the government to make the first start in strengthening the department by putting its minister where he ought to be.
I know a little something about representing a small province in the cabinet of Canada and I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that it is tough enough to represent a small province

and achieve its objectives in the cabinet when you are present; it is quite impossible when you are absent. I could go on and cite instances, in my opinion, of inaction, wrong actions or inordinate delays affecting the province of Nova Scotia, which I attribute to the absence of the minister from the main decision-making body of the cabinet. I will return to that subject later as I want to say just a word or two about an incident that happened during the question period last Friday when we were talking about the policy of the Government of Canada on the Middle East.
The unsureness of this government has been demonstrated time and time again by confusion and uncertainty, and that is especially true in the field of foreign policy. Confusion and uncertainty are the order of the day. It was added to, heightened and strengthened last Friday when we put questions to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) asking them to tell us what their current policy is on the moving of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The day after he was sworn in as Prime Minister the leader of the government said, referring to the question of the embassy, that "these questions are now beyond discussion as to their appropriateness". He said that these questions are now beyond discussion, but on Friday neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs would tell us what their current policy is. Is it still the intention of the government to move the embassy? You can imagine the confusion that existed in our embassies throughout the world when the message went out on the weekend telling them what their minister and their Prime Minister said. What would they say to an inquirer on Monday when asked what the government is now thinking about the matter of the embassy and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? In one answer the Prime Minister not only cast doubt upon the status of the decision to move the embassy, he cast doubt upon the policy of the government toward the Palestinian Liberation Organization and, thirdly, he cast doubt on Mr. Stanfield as an ambassador. It requires a master of uncertainty to achieve those three objectives in one single answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We do have a master of uncertainty and confusion in the field of foreign policy.
I have already talked about the lack of clarity on the movement of the embassy. My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), asked the Prime Minister whether Mr. Stanfield was free to talk to the PLO and the Prime Minister said: "Of course, he is free to talk to anybody". We know of the experience the United States has had in this regard. Their policy was not to talk to the PLO and when Andrew Young talked to them he was fired. There is no such strict attitude here. People are free to talk.
Then the hon. member asked whether that does not imply a recognition of the PLO by the Canadian government and the
October 15, 1979

Prime Minister said: "Well, no, because I have created a new international creature called 'an ambassador extraordinary', and because he is an ambassador extraordinary he is not a representative of Canada, in some way because his presence with others does not imply the presence of the Government of Canada." I wonder what King Hussein thinks now, being told by the Prime Minister that Mr. Stanfield really was not what he said he was, and is not what the order in council says in both languages he is, that he is a special representative of the Government of Canada and an ambassador at large. The word "extraordinary" does not appear in either French or English.
Will you please tell us, Prime Minister, when you get the first opportunity, what is the status of Mr. Stanfield? Is he a representative of the Government of Canada or is he not? Is he half a representative, thereby earning the description "extraordinary", and will you tell us whether, because he is only half a representative, or less than a full representative, when he speaks to bodies like the PLO he does not imply any recognition of those organizations? These are all confusions that were created during one single question period last Friday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. In order for him to continue he must have the unanimous consent of the House. Does he have that consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and Canso.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that the city of Sydney has an excellent representative already in the person of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLel-lan), and I would not attempt to replace him in the House. My constituency is Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. I just want to give this piece of advice to the government. Why not end the uncertainty now? Why not do what you know you are going to do down the road, and that is revoke the decision to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Do that now and end what the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) so eloquently called the "hiatus". That is a new Conservative word for "economic depression" in our commercial relations with the Middle East. The minister in response to questions from this side did admit there was a hiatus in those commercial relations. End this hiatus. If any of you were in doubt about the gravity of the situation you must have had your minds clarified by listening last night to Minister Yamani on television when he made it very clear that Saudi Arabia was waiting for clarity from the Government of Canada on this particular, so-called, unnecessary Stanfield mission. It is not needed. I wonder why the Prime Minister would ask Mr. Stanfield to go on this mission to collect facts which are known already and to furnish information which is presently available in the Department of
The Address-Mr. MacEachen External Affairs. Let us end this charade and get on with the serious business of making decisions soon.
Let me turn to another phase of our foreign policy, and this has to do with the pronouncements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There are two voices now for external affairs speaking from a single throat. There was one voice which spoke at the United Nations making a clarion call for human rights. Certainly in that call the minister has our full support. Indeed, she went on to say that full human rights cannot be achieved in the world unless there is provided to the poor and those in want the basic necessities of life-food, clothing, health care and shelter-and certainly with that we agree. That is the position we took when we were in government and we support it today.
The minister made that statement of principle. She appeared as "Lady Bountiful" before the United Nations. We supported her there, but she later appeared before the Empire Club in Toronto where she made a change in emphasis. Why did she put in question before the Empire Club some of the traditional and still cherished principles of international aid policy?


Pauline Jewett: Read my speech of Friday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I not only had the pleasure of reading the speech of the hon. member, but I had the pleasure of watching her on television Friday afternoon, and I heard all that she had to say. There were some valid comments, which I intend to pursue at the present time. The minister took an entirely different attitude at the Empire Club in Toronto. In fact, this particular red Tory took on a very bluish tinge before that club.
Since I do not want to take advantage of the latitude of the House, I would like to conclude by mentioning two particular matters. The first matter has to do with the question, asked by the minister. She asked the question, "What is Canada doing in certain parts of the world?" The press informs us that the original text said, "What is Canada doing in Africa?", but I am not quarrelling about that. She may have wanted to blunt the strength of her policy or her suggestion by saying, "What is Canada doing in certain parts of the world?"
Indeed, what is Canada doing in certain parts of the world? What is Canada doing in Africa? Canada is in Africa because in Africa live among the poorest people of the world. What is Canada doing in Asia? What is Canada doing in South America? What is Canada doing in the Caribbean? The minister said that we are not there because of trade, and because we do not have trade we are not there because we are a colonial empire. That is true.
Does the minister not realize that we are there because basically we believe in a humanitarian approach to the solutions of the world's problems, that we believe that peace and stability in the world cannot be achieved unless we alleviate misery and poverty, unless we give full human rights to these people? Why is the minister uncertain? Why is she casting

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. MacEachen doubt on the fact that Canada is directing large parts of its aid to the poorest countries of the world? I hope that she will take a very early opportunity to clarify this question because there is great concern in this country and elsewhere that Canada is receding from its commitment to these poorest of the poor.
I could go on and quote statements made by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition or statements made by the parliamentary secretary to the minister which contradict totally the new posture which the minister has given to international development questions. 1 can tell her right now that we disagree on that question. If the minister is questioning the necessity of providing lots of aid to these countries, if she is questioning our emphasis on the Commonwealth, our emphasis on Francophonie, then we disagree with her, as do many others in the country.
I now come to my second point. In her speech at the United Nations, the minister opened a subject which had never been opened by a Canadian foreign minister or a Canadian Prime Minister at the United Nations. She made a relationship between foreign aid to the underdeveloped countries and their political attitudes and political views. In fact, the minister singled out Pakistan as a very large recipient of Canadian aid and implied that that aid is in jeopardy if Pakistan freely expresses its opinion, as it did at the conference of the non-aligned countries.


An hon. Member:: Damned right.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: An hon. member says "damned right", and we know who he is and his views. He confirms my interpretation of the speech, that the minister is attempting to link foreign aid with the political views and the political opinions of the recipient country.


An hon. Member:: About time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Another hon. member says "about time". When the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition, he clearly stated in this House that at no time would he relate foreign aid to the political opinions of the recipient country.
There is another dangerous policy. When aid is given to Pakistan, for example, are we not trying to help the poor of that country? Are we not trying to give them the type of human rights which the minister called for at the United Nations? I certainly oppose a policy which would say to Pakistan or to any other country, "You line up and vote and agree with Canada at international fora, and then you will be considered eligible for Canadian aid".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope that the minister will take an early opportunity to clarify her position and that she will reject the suggestion which emerged so clearly in her speech in New York and which was supported so vociferously by two members on the Tory benches today, that she will at the earliest opportunity tell us that she has made a mistake.

The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) has indicated, and rightly so, that I should wind up my speech. I want to do that because I do not want to take advantage of the House.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for her speeches because she has helped us to understand more clearly what Toryism, whether of the blue variety or the red variety, is all about when it comes to questions of international economic development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would-


Mr. Knowles:: Is this your maiden speech?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, this is my maiden speech, and I hope that all the maidens of Canada will listen to it. I am always very happy to listen to the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), because if there is one thing that he is never short on, it is rhetoric and oratorical ability.
Before I turn to a few words of introduction, I think that there is a difference between the government of today and the last government which I sat and listened to in this House. I think our government shows that we are masters of our destiny and the destiny of Canada, while the former government were spectators at their own downfall. I think that puts it in a nutshell.
As a matter of tradition, I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and incorporate in my remarks all the nice things that have been said about those two distinguished members of Parliament by others. They have fulfilled that tradition and in congratulating them, and 1 do it genuinely, I wish also to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the members of his cabinet.
I think 1 am making history today, Mr. Speaker, as a native son from western Canada reminding this House of Commons that Canada today has its first western born Prime Minister. There have been other prime ministers from other provinces, such as Bennett from New Brunswick and Diefenbaker from Ontario, who lived most of their youth and mature lives in western Canada, but we have today reached maturity in confederation with the first Prime Minister born and raised in western Canada, in the historic centre of High River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have an answer to the criticism of the distinguished member from Cape Breton who worries about an inner and outer cabinet. There is no cabinet minister from Calgary but that problem has been solved. Calgary has just grown so large that High River is now a suburb, so the Prime Minister really comes from the city of Calgary.
October 15, 1979

1 should like to remind the House leader for the official opposition of the words used by his leader in his speech the other day. I know the rules about quoting from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, but there are only a few lines and 1 hope members as distinguished as those across the floor from me and who are very experienced will excuse me for quoting from a speech in the same debate. The right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) said, as reported at page 30 of Hansard:
I should like now to touch upon the manner in which, as members of the Liberal party, we intend to play the important role of representatives of the official opposition. There is no doubt that the people of Canada have given the Progressive Conservative party a mandate to govern Canada and want us to give them the chance to administer our country without being exposed to political interference and chicanery. Not only do we accept and respect the decision of the people, but we will take seriously the responsibility with which we have been entrusted to co-operate constructively in the preparation of Canadian policies.
To me that means the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, at that moment of truth, informed the House that he and his party intend to give the government a chance to govern. For this I congratulate him.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to turn to the subject of my speech today which is confined to one issue and one issue alone. The debate in reference to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne gives every member the opportunity of expressing their views on a crusade which they have been waging and, in addition, gives them an opportunity to set out grievances and recommendations to remedy the crusade as it affects the nation and the constituency.
For ten long years 1 have been pressing the Canadian government-now it will be governments-and various ministers of the day, namely, the secretary of state for external affairs, the solicitor general and the minister of justice, for some action regarding the treatment that young Canadians have received when arrested in Mexico.
At the outset, let me say that no matter how evil the conduct of a human being, or how low he sinks in society, no matter how degrading that conduct may be in reference to the standards set by society, such person is entitled to be treated with dignity as a human being, to the full protection of the law and, indeed, kindness, charity and understanding. They should receive punishment only after due process of law. While awaiting trial such persons should always be regarded as innocent because of the presumption of innocence under our system.
Like many others in this House, 1 have spent my lifetime trying to assist people who have run afoul of the law so as to assure that the rule of law as we know it, whether applied in Canada or elsewhere, should govern the conduct of the process of law rather than have people governed by the rule of people. People who are arrested legally, and sometimes illegally, need head and heart concern. Those who have had the privilege of being moulded in a good environment-an environment of the home, the school, society and other institutions-do not often suffer the horrendous trauma of law enforcement. This can be due to their appreciation of responsibility to society or because they are entitled to the best counsel. That is not to suggest for one moment that those who have enjoyed those privileges do
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
not at times flaunt society's rules and regulations; the law should be applied equally to all.
On October 12 last, 1 put the following question in this House:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I join with others who genuinely offer her good wishes.
My question arises from the fact that Kirk Thomas and Mark Rollin were arrested in Mexico last June and held in jail for three months without charge under circumstances which John Howard, the prison reformer of the eighteenth century, would have found deplorable and inhumane even in England at that time.
My question was very simple: Would the minister make a protest? Had I been permitted-and I am not going to say anything about that at the moment although I may later-to ask one further short question, my point would have been made clear. 1 should like to put on the record the question I would have asked at that time. 1 would have asked the minister if she would further protest that dozens of Canadian families in Canada are being ripped off to the tune of thousands of dollars, and in this particular case $10,000, to get the youths home from Mexican jails. On the face of it, in many cases there would appear to be a fraudulent conspiracy-and I do not say this lightly-among Mexican officials who obtained this money for the release of these young people through our embassy, through action which is not acceptable by our standards. In this particular case the youths were held for three months without charge.
In brief, this is one of a dozen examples I have raised in this House and others that have not been mentioned. Kurt Thomas and Mark Rollin, aged 19 and 20 respectively, of Sherwood Park, Edmonton, Alberta, were arrested in Mexico on June 30 last because they went joy riding in a boat in Mexico without the consent of the owner. 1 do not defend their actions. Even in this country that would be illegal. 1 am, however, condemning what occurred following their arrest, which was a duplication of what happened in many cases with Canadian citizens visiting Mexico as tourists. In Canada this offence would just result in a summary conviction.
They were arrested on June 30 and held in a jail at La Paz for three months without charge, without medical attention, without dental attention and in the most filthy cell, and were forced to eat out of a dish that no respectable Canadian or citizen of the western world would consider suitable.
The parents, Mr. and Mrs. Gerd Thomas, made one or two trips to Mexico and at first put up $4,697.67 payable, as 1 understand it, to our embassy for lawyers' fees and restitution for a boat which was not damaged and was returned. In addition and inclusive of that amount of money, they paid out almost $10,000 for one expense or another, most of which under our system or that of any civilized nation would be unnecessary. It would be neither condoned by the law societies of Canada nor by the law of Canada.
After some time in jail the Thomases were allowed to see their son. He had not had a bath for many months; his hair was down past his shoulders; he was unwashed, unkempt and

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
unclean. Elis parents brought pressure to bear on everyone they felt had some authority to do something. Finally, after paying the sum of approximately $10,000 for expenses of one kind or another, their son and his friend were released. Charges were withdrawn which had been laid only during the last part of the three months in order to make legal what was illegal.
1 might add that I have raised my voice before in reference to matters of this kind. To come to the point, when young people are arrested in Mexico-1 have ample evidence, not only from reading the report of the special subcommittee of the Senate of the United States but also from facts concerning other cases in Canada where the incarceration of Canadian and American youth takes place in Mexico-a method is followed. This method, and I have no hesitation or reservation in saying this, is to extort money from parents to the total of their bankroll. Many of these people are hardworking folk, perhaps earning small salaries. After something like this occurs, these people are left bankrupt or in debt.
Let me mention another case in passing which took place on October 22, 1976. This case was reported in The Globe and Mail. I quote from this article:
Jane and Ray Bethune have been trying since January to free their daughter from jail.
Longshoreman Ray Bethune, 56, says he has spent $18,000, wiped out his savings and taken out a bank loan during the past eight months trying to get his 22-year-old daughter out of a Mexican jail.
He says that Canadian government officials told him to keep quiet or his daughter Sharon would suffer at the hands of the Mexicans.
I might pause there. If hon. members look at a report of the special subcommittee of the United States Senate, they will see page after page of evidence which shows that what I have said is correct and that what was written almost three years ago in The Globe and Mail is accurate. Mr. Bethune in his interview with The Globe and Mail reporter went on to say:
We just don't know what the hell to do any more-it's been a nightmare.
You have to remember that in Mexico you are guilty until proven innocent; that is where the slowness in the system comes.
Mr. Bethune said his daughter had nothing to do with the alleged crime and her boyfriend had testified to that.
As a result, Mr. Bethune's daughter was finally released. I can read more about that case but it only illustrates the point I am making, which is that none of us endorses Canadian people going to foreign countries and breaking laws. On the other hand, none of us endorses-whatever the facts are in reference to these cases I have outlined and dozens of others-a neighbouring state permitting the extortion of money from innocent parents because of love and affection for their offspring which drain savings and borrowing power just to get a release from these horror jails and holes.
On March 2, 1977-and in this respect I congratulate the previous government which I kept pressing with questions-a treaty was signed among Mexico, Canada and the United States in reference to the exchange of prisoners. The bill I pressed for and the treaties flowing from the bill were to serve as a prototype for Canada in negotiating similar treaties with other countries. The United States and our own government
[Mr. Woolliams.)
accomplished an exchange of prisoners following conviction and sentence; that is to say, after a certain time, the exchange would take place. Mexico bypasses this agreement. The question is why. Canadians are held in jail without charge, without a court appearance and therefore without any process of law that would put the agreement into effect so that the international legal exchange can be properly made. This issue has been raised by me on many occasions.
With respect to the Thomas case, after the parents' visitation, the two accused held in jail for three months, they were finally charged to legalize the illegal and the charges were withdrawn. After much frustration and after the Thomases had borrowed money from the bank, their release did take place.
I have a letter from a former solicitor general, the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox), now a member of the opposition, dated March 28, 1977. In this letter he states:
I must remind you that such a treaty would not include people awaiting trial but only those under sentence or on probation. Those awaiting trial will still have to request assistance from the Canadian embassy which has been quite efficient in certain cases.
Was he right? The agreement was there. However, on April 10, 1978 Mr. Don Jamieson, the former minister of external affairs, pointed out the act would be proclaimed and the treaty for exchange of prisoners approved as a result of negotiations carried out by the government, and indeed as a result of the position others in Parliament had taken. All have protested but without effect. The United States protested. 1 say to the House, read the report of the special committee of the U.S. Senate.
Canada has protested this. In answer to questions I put to former ministers of external affairs they told me they had protested and they did protest. Our present minister has protested, but the illegal process goes on. However, it is the extortion that 1 object to most. Let us bring it to an end. Let us agree that this treaty does not help much, because no charges are laid, no counsel is permitted, no communication is allowed and no accounting of property seized is given. In reading the Senate report I see it says airplanes and automobiles have been taken. These items just disappear. In many cases no reputable attorneys are at hand. In this particular case, $4,600 or more was paid in lawyer's fees which the Thomases say did nothing.
I hear my hon. friend say it is not according to Canadian standards. I say this to the hon. member, that if a lawyer charges a fee and does not act, or he acted in this fashion, under the rules of the law societies of Canada and the law of Canada he would be disbarred. I say to members that if they have constituencies with rotten lawyers, that is their problem and not mine.
Surely it is not too strong to suggest that there is abusive arrest, abuse of the process of law, abuse by extortion, abuse and confiscation of property without compensation, and abuse of what the United Nations has suggested. The testimony given before the special committee of the United States dealing with the same abuse that Canadians have been subjected
October 15, 1979

to-and this is the Senate's finding, not mine-includes, first, physical torture. There is clear evidence of physical torture on the prisoners, such as broken ribs, or electronic shock devices attached to various parts of the prisoners. Second, there is extortion. In this case huge amounts of money were required by lawyers and prison authorities in order to give prisoners bare necessities; amounts average $10,000. Third, there is Mexican inmate involvement. Mexican prisons appear to be run by other prisoners who share in the "take" from American and Canadian prisoners. These people are again in league with local lawyers, prison officials and the police.
The Senate committee finds in some cases that there are conspiracies. There must be a conspiracy for this kind of thing to occur. The requirements are whatever local authorities say they are. Two years is almost standard for investigation purposes.
When one criticizes, one must make some recommendations.
I ask what shall we do? A very careful report should be prepared and sent to the proper department in the United Nations dealing with civil liberties and human rights, pointing out that we and other members of the United Nations protest any further abuse in this regard. The United States has done that. Is that too much to ask?
Second, a study should be made in Canada, instead of our always relying on studies done in the United States. Our study could be similar to that of the United States Senate. This job could be taken on by our Senate or possibly by justice and legal affairs. Witnesses could be subject to the terms and conditions I have pointed out this afternoon in this House. In their evidence they could describe how they have suffered under these conditions and how they were dehumanized. Above all, they could describe what money has been extorted from their parents.
Third, the strongest protest possible should be made by our Department of External Affairs through proper diplomatic channels. As the American subcommittee recommended, a list of reputable lawyers should be kept by our embassy in Mexico. This should be done in light of evidence that came out before the United States subcommittee that lawyers were receiving payments without acting. I already referred to the Thomases where $4,600 was paid to lawyers who did not do anything until the parents went there and visited.
I want to read from these letters. Again I have the letter dated March 28 from the former solicitor general, the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes. I will not read all of it. He emphasized, and I quote:
1 must remind you that such a treaty would not include people awaiting trial-
I pause there. Why are they sometimes held three months, six months or a year until the last dollar is drained from the parents? That is really what the solicitor general was saying in very diplomatic language. He continued:
-those awaiting trial will still have to request assistance from the Canadian embassy-
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
It is time for the Canadian embassy to do as the Americans have done, namely have part of their staff trained in legal matters to understand and comprehend after study the jurisprudence of Mexico in order that they can assist those who get into this plight.
On April 10, 1978 I received a letter from Don Jamieson pointing out that the treaty had been signed. Bill C-21 to which our party, the NDP and all members of the House gave their approval regarding the exchange of prisoners is now being bypassed. This has not been an easy fight; it has been going on for a long time. I wish to read some of the findings of the committee in the United States. I quote:
Similarly, it is difficult to verify complaints of confiscation of personal property when receipts have not been given, or of confirming extortion by an attorney in the absence of a written contract or agreement. Despite the fact that the evidence or lack thereof in this category is "inconclusive", it should be noted the panel believes that these complaints and allegations have some merit since they form a credible pattern. This conclusion is reached even though another pattern similarly emerged from this review indicating that a large number of complaints resulted from self-serving efforts by the prisoners-
In spite of that, they found evidence to the effect that those facts were correct. After summarizing the evidence, the committee said this:
Most of the substantiated cases of denial of access have been protested. Some have been protested formally, by note, to the Mexican government. Other cases, usually outside Mexico City, have been protested to local authorities. Those cases which were not protested represent either an unwillingness on the part of the prisoner to have his name included in a note of protest-often for fear that this might jeopardize his case ... In some jurisdictions there has been noticeable improvement in the notification process; in others, there has been little or no improvement. This is clearly an area in which efforts must continuously be made.
The Senate committee further stated:
Corrective Action Taken: Substantiated findings refer to instances of infrequent visitation by consular officers which occurred mainly between early 1974 and February 1975. During this period the posts were hampered by insufficient funds to permit travel to outlying jails. It is noted, however, that some of the valid complaints in this category were also made by prisoners who were incarcerated in jails nearby, which indicates that visits were irregular and infrequent. Since February 1975 all American prisoners in Mexico who so desired have been visited on a regular basis-
I hope that would be a finding of any one of our committees.
Corrective Action Taken: No action has been taken nor does any action appear to be feasible, since determination of guilt or innocence is a proper function of the Mexican legal system. While a number of cases reflect a vigorous dispute as to the verdict and the manner in which evidence was secured to determine it, the Mexican legal system does provide a forum for the resolution of such disputes.
Therefore they remain in jail without charge.
Substantiated instances of abuse at the time of arrest were protested orally and by note to the Mexican government and/or the local jurisdictional authorities when the prisoner indicated he desired to have a protest made. In many cases the prisoner believed it to be in his best interest not to register a protest, although he did inform the visiting consular officer that he had been subjected to mistreatment.
I am reading this evidence to show how necessary it is for our committee to study this and maybe to set up a similar special committee of cur Senate.
In several cases the embassy or the various consulates in Mexico have been successful in obtaining a return, or at least a partial return, of confiscated personal property.

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
They go on to say that personal property disappears because they issue no receipts, as is the case in jails in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. These people have no protection whatsoever.
Although a few of the substantiated cases occurred elsewhere, these would appear to be somewhat isolated incidents rather than the general pattern of prison life.
It goes on to point out that where there is a local authority, prisoners are better treated. However, in a city like Mexico City where the jurisdiction is of wider scope, this treatment is still continuing.
In a majority of cases, however, the prisoner chooses not to have a protest made in his behalf. This may be from fear of reprisal from the "mayores" or their "commandos", or from fear of being transferred to another cell block and thereby losing many of the privileges the prisoner has already paid for.
These are findings of a committee that studied this situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that he does not have the unanimous consent of the House. I will ask again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member may continue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I suppose everybody is entitled to one enemy. As the former leader of the New Democratic Party said, who has not got an enemy? When he asked that, a fellow stood up at the back of the hall and said "I have not got any enemies". When Mr. Douglas asked him why he had none, he said, "I outlived them all!" I continue:
Despite Mexican constitutional provisions that no one may be held incommunicado and that everyone has the immediate right to an attorney, such provisions are usually ignored or blurred in practice by prosecutors and police.
This violation of constitutional rights does not invalidate the case under Mexican law.
In conclusion, I would hope the recommendations I have made this afternoon asking that a strong petition be delivered, asking that the matter be brought before the human rights and civil rights bodies of the United Nations, asking that we ourselves should make a study of the situation in a white paper, will be accepted by the government and endorsed by all members of the House. I am certain that if presented in the

right light the grievances I have outlined, grievances which affect many young Canadians and Canadian families, will be remedied by goodwill and international understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, this is an historical moment in my life, naturally. It is the first time I have had the privilege to speak in this chamber. In a way I feel partly at home because of the general ecclesiastical look of the place and from the fact that the traditional place of holding Parliament was an old abbey. I have not seen anyone beginning to say their brevaries here but the feeling of being in an abbey is part of this place. I have noticed that a few things are not carried through in the traditional ecclesiastical way, though; one is that the choir, which I would say is above you, Mr. Speaker, gets very little chance to sing, and another is that the congregation in general is not as well behaved as in most churches I have attended.
Historically again, I would like to say that I am the first person from my family, which emigrated from Ireland some 150 years ago, who has had this privilege to stand here. It is also historical in the sense that I am the first representative to speak from the new riding of Saskatoon East, which is cut off from the old riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt. That riding and its former member have both disappeared into history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Saskatoon East is a small riding territorially. It takes in only that part of Saskatoon that lies east of the Saskatchewan River, and a little fringe of rural ground around the city. Many hon. members, like myself, availed themselves of the free ride the Canadian government offered us to attend the funeral of our former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Diefen'oaker, who is buried now within the riding of Saskatoon East. Many tributes have been paid to Mr. Diefenbaker in these last days, and rightly so. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) suggested his spirit was still within this room. That, I am sure, is true. But I should like to lay aside, once and for all, a rumour which was quite widely circulated in the west. The rumour that something would happen at the tomb on the third day is completely false. I can vouch for that because I actually live only about 250 yards from the tomb of Mr. Diefenbaker. I am watching it carefully.
Hon. members visiting Saskatoon that day, including many who were doing so for the first time, were in the centre of one of the institutions that our province holds in high esteem, the University of Saskatchewan. At the present time there would be at the University of Saskatchewan something like 10,000 students who come not only from Saskatchewan but from many areas of Canada. We are proud of our university, we are proud of its staff and we are proud of those who go to classes there.
I would like also to say that in Saskatoon East I do not want anybody to think that we are lacking energy simply because the minister of energy represents Saskatoon West. As a matter of fact, we have plenty of energy and the minister of energy

October 15, 1979
himself lives within our constituency. Now, I am old enough to know, and I like to think I have faith enough to believe, that there is always the possibility of a conversion, and although the minister of energy and the member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has been a long-standing friend of mine for many years, I do believe that at this time he should have a bit of a conversion, particularly with the stand he is now taking with regard to the dismantling of PetroCan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: In my nomination speech and all through the campaign that I carried out for many months I stated in that first speech, and many times afterward, that it was my intention to defend human life from its conception until its natural end. In doing so I tried to lay down quite simply the fact of my basic belief in human rights which has been expressed by many members of this House already in this session. My basic belief is that each human being has been given the right to life and that this right continues until they naturally die. These rights are sometimes of an individual nature and sometimes of a collective nature. They ought not to be infringed upon at any time.
Now, both in our country and in the world infringement of human rights continues. During that short space of time that we human beings have to live on this planet, you and I, Mr. Speaker, and all others have somehow or other to struggle and fight to see that the rights of all human beings are safeguarded, and one of the rights that I consider to be basic to each of us is the right to health. That right encompasses and takes into account all the other human living conditions that are necessary to make it possible for a person to live as a healthy person. And when 1 speak of health I speak not only of the physical health which we all hope to have, but also of the psychological, moral, spiritual and emotional health which makes it possible for a human being to live as a human being and, more important, makes it possible for a nation to live as a healthy nation and the world to live as a healthy community of nations. So when I speak of health, I do not speak merely of the medical state which so frequently is used as the whole standard; 1 speak of the whole integrated reality that makes up the well-being of all people.
As 1 have said, it is one of my basic personal convictions that the right to health is one of the most important rights we have as human beings, and that if we as Canadian citizens want really to make a mark at the United Nations it is important that we show the way with a model of ourselves rather than with a pointing of the finger at others who have so far not reached that level of health.
It was basically because of this that 1 was disappointed in the Speech from the Throne. 1 found quite quickly that there was not a single mention of health or the social principles and bases which are needed to bring about a healthy society. The question of health and more specifically the question of medical care have in no way been totally settled in this country. A
The Address-Mr. Ogle
former member of Parliament of my party, Tommy Douglas, said this past weekend in Toronto that he believes that there is a grave danger for our country because the medical care system we now have is under serious pressure and could, in a sense, disintegrate. In the next few minutes I would like to direct some of my remarks to that particular problem and crisis. I agree that it is one of the main problems in our country today.
In passing 1 will say that the right to health is not listed as such among the rights of the United Nations, but in article 25 a much broader stand, what I like to think of as rights across the board, was stated as follows:
Every human being has the right to a standard of living adequate to ensure his health and well-being, as well as those of his family-particularly as regards their need for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, as well as the necessary social services...
In May, 1977 at the World Health Assembly our country went on record when it adopted the global health goal, which is as follows;
That the main social targets of governments and the World Health Organization in the coming decades should be the attainment by all citizens of the world by the year 2000 of a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically productive life.
I personally feel we should keep that goal before ourselves all the time.
In the coming years there will be many areas of health about which I would like to speak. One of them will be the whole question of human nutrition and food. 1 have lived part of my life in the developing world. I have lived with starving people whose main problem was lack of food, but I think that wc and people like ourselves who live with bounty but who many times are overfed and undernourished must seriously look into the whole question of food as it is used and eaten in our country. We must look critically at artificial foods and ingredients which make "natural" food anything but natural food.
On the question of medicare once more, I have heard various speakers in the past week in this House refer to medicare. Many of them claimed that they had a great deal to do with its founding, but I personally had the experience of living very close to the heart of the medicare crisis of 1962 in Saskatchewan when the first universal medicare plan in North America came into effect. The battle began on July 1 of that year and continued until July 23. There was a basic tearing apart of many people because of the intensity of that head-on struggle, but it finally resulted in a signed declaration in Saskatoon on July 23 which gave the province of Saskatchewan the first medicare plan in North America.
At that time I was younger than I am today, of course, but by a particular accident of fate I was living directly between the two sides. The government of Saskatchewan was headquartered in the Bessborough Hotel, and the medical profession was headquartered in the medical building just a few hundred yards down the street. Directly in the centre of that was the old Catholic Centre of which I used to be the director. During those 23 days I literally lived in no man's land.
190

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Ogle
However, at the end of the 23 days there had been a basic social change in the history of our country. I feel now that those 23 days had a great influence on my life in relation to many other social questions. It was an education to be there and to see that finally social change of a basic nature came about only when a group of people had in themselves a vision and, more than a vision, the courage to bring about that vision even though everyone seemed to be against them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: From that beginning in Saskatchewan in 1962 the notion of a medicare scheme spread to other provinces. However, that came after. Because there was a problem of magnitude-medicare would affect everybody-a former prime minister, now deceased, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, made an historic decision and appointed in 1961 Mr. Justice Emmett Hall to study the health needs of Canadians. I believe the resulting report should seriously be looked at again by all Canadians because that document outlines the basics of medicare.
Some of the recommendations in that report have been put into effect, but many have never yet been attempted. There are visions in that document which have not really come to light anywhere as yet, but I invite one and all to look again at that document. In the document there were four basic principles which were necessary to have a medicare scheme function. The first was that there should be comprehensive coverage; everyone should be in the scheme. The second principle was that there should be universal availability; that it would be possible for everybody to receive health care. The third was that there should be portable benefits; one could travel from one place to another and still be taken care of. Finally, it should be administered by a central, non-profit administration. That has worked, more or less, in different places and in different ways, but in the last year or so I feel that obvious cracks have begun to appear in the system. Doctors are now opting out, which has a different wording in different places. There is double billing or something else, which is to say that the system is not being followed. Premiums are now going to be charged in Newfoundland, for instance, which again goes against the very basic nature of the medicare idea.
When things like this begin to happen, we have a dangerous situation on our hands. To draw an analogy, the four principles to which 1 referred could be regarded as something like the legs of a chair. If one leg of a chair was shorter than the others, the chair would be wobbly and a very uncomfortable place to sit. If one began to cut the legs so that a balance could be obtained by giving up a part of one of the legs, the chair really would not become balanced. A more critical situation would develop, finally causing the person sitting on the chair- and I do not know what words I can use in the House-to fall to the floor. That is what will happen with the medicare scheme and plan unless something of a drastic nature is done to stop the erosion that is taking place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Now I should like to quote from the speech which Tommy Douglas gave in Toronto this weekend in which he expressed ideas that are very close to mine. 1 should like to state the ideas of a person for whom I have great respect and who, in total truth, can be called the father of medicare, namely, Mr. Douglas. He said, and it is true, that the majority of doctors across Canada are operating under medicare plans. He said also that if fee schedules are not adequate under provincial plans, then fair schedules should be negotiated between the provinces and the doctors. There is no point in saying that all doctors are unjust, that is just not true, but they should be given fair fee schedules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Douglas also said that there should be no opting out. That was a very clear principle in the Hall report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Another thing that Mr. Douglas said, and which I feel is a very good point, is that if a doctor wants to opt out, then he should be allowed to do so, but he should opt right out and not use the scheme to get part of what he wants and something else to get some more of what he wants. The vast majority of doctors will remain with the scheme and receive an adequate income for their services, but if they opt out, then, I suggest, they should do without the public services which they frequently use under the medical care plan. That is a very serious point and one which I hope this government will take to heart. I hope that the government will ensure that that practice stops under the present legislation.
There are certain areas of health care which I think deserve special attention. I will pass over them quickly. I feel that health care in the whole area of industry is a point to which this government will have to pay special attention. In the area of health care, psychiatric care in the penitentiary system, special notice will have to be taken by the government. Odyssey, a group of inmates at Millhaven working for constructive, non-violent change, produced a working paper in August of this year alleging that medical and psychiatric neglect and abuse are rampant in Canadian penitentiaries. That should be dealt with immediately by the government.
Then there is the whole problem of the Indian native population. A serious injustice is being done to these people because of the appallingly inferior level of health care being provided to the native communities. The average life expectancy is 10 to 20 years less for a native; health and mortality is two to three times as high as the national average; their caloric intake is well below the national average; the number of doctors and nurses caring for them is well below the national average.
In the new charter which Mr. Hall produced the following is stated:
There is clearly an overriding national interest in the health of Canadians wherever they reside. We are a mobile people and illness knows no provincial boundaries nor other differences... What the commission recommends is that... as a nation we now take the necessary legislative, organizational, and

October 15, 1979
financial decisions to make all the fruits of the health sciences available to all our residents without hindrance of any kind. All our recommendations are directed toward this objective.
That paper is 15 years old but it is still extremely relevant.
As 1 only have a few moments left, may I recount a story in summing up and leave with the House something on which to reflect. The story has to do with neighbourliness and who is our neighbour. 1 will tell it as it is oulined in the Gospel according to Saint Luke.
The question of who is my neighbour and how must I care for him is an old one. According to the Gospel, a lawyer asked Jesus one day, in an attempt to justify himself, "And who is my neighbour?". Jesus replied that a man was once on his way down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of thieves. They took all he had, beat him and then made off, leaving him half dead. Now, a priest happened to be travelling down the same road, but when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. In the same way, a Levite who came to the place saw him and passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan traveller who came upon him was moved with compassion when he saw him. He went up and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. He then lifted him on his own mount, carried him to the inn and looked after him. Next day, he took out two denarii and handed them to the innkeeper. "Look after him," he said, "and on my way back I will make good any extra expense you have." Which of these three do you think proved himself a neighbour to the man who fell into the thieves' hands? The lawyer answered, "The one who took pity on him." Jesus said to him, "Go, and do the same yourself."
It is an old story, a new story, the same story about three groups of people involved. The first group consisted of the thieves who came upon this person. Their principle of life was: What is yours is mine. So they took all he had.
An hon. Mlember: That is the NDP all right.


An hon. Member:: No, the Conservatives.


Robert Joseph Ogle: The second group of people consisted of the priest and the Levite, officially good people going down to the temple to pray. They saw the man, but he had a problem, he was half dead and this might make them unclean so that they could not pray, the law would not let them pray. Their principle of life was: What is mine is mine. But the poor Samaritan did not know all those rules; all he knew was that there was a person in distress, a person in need. So he stopped, and not knowing it all, picked him up, put him on his animal and looked after him. The last person's principle of life was: What is mine is ours. That is what I believe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, let me add to those who have already joined in this debate my congratulations to you on your election as Speaker in the House of Commons. Should I ever transgress the rules in the House, please be assured that it will only be because of my
The Address-Mr. de Corneille unfamiliarity with the rules and customs, not because of any intention to violate the established procedures or to challenge the dignity of the House or of your office. May I also add these same sentiments in my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker on his preferment.
Indeed, I intend to do my utmost to avoid weakening and in fact to enrich the traditions and attainments of the House of Commons, which not only represents but embodies the very right to freedom. Even though, as can be seen in another important historical document, we feel that right is self-evident, a large segment of the world thinks otherwise. In fact, some of us have seen the rights of individuals savagely crushed in the Nazi holocaust. A calculated and meticulously executed genocide took place in that part of the world which claimed to be the cradle of culture. Six million Jews, and many more millions of non-Jews, perished. The most fundamental right of the individual, the right to live, was trampled massively and scornfully.

Many of the people who live in Canada today have tasted bitterly of that catastrophe of the holocaust either by the loss of loved ones who were its victims or who died sacrificially in the course of efforts by the armed services to swamp out this monstrous evil which inflicted such vast insult upon the dignity of the human person.

Unfortunately, mankind's torments did not end with the holocaust. On the contrary: the Nazi holocaust marked the starting point for a series of diabolical communist genocides, to which must be added the abominable carnages of reactionary rightist despots who were just as rapacious and cynical about the freedom and rights of man. We witnessed with horror the spread of contempt for the foundations of freedom and democracy. Because of that, the House of Commons constitutes a challenge of the spirit of man against those forces which, on this earth, would scorn the right to life and its sacred nature.

To be a member of the Parliament of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is therefore the highest privilege that one's fellow Canadians can bestow upon one. I am proud to be included among my distinguished colleagues in the House. I am grateful for this privilege which the people of Eglinton-Lawrence have bestowed upon me, and I am mindful that I am walking in the path and in the footsteps of individual predecessors, predecessors from my riding including the Hon. Donald Fleming, a former minister of finance, and more recently his successor, a distinguished former minister of finance, secretary of state for external affairs and, latterly, president of the privy council, Mitchell Sharp. I shall do my best to represent all of the people of Eglinton-Lawrence in the same way as my predeces-

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
sors did, irrespective of the political affiliations of my constituents.
In speaking to the resolution expressing our appreciation to His Excellency the Governor General, I should like to pay my respects to the mover and seconder of this motion. I should like to add to their observations that, as 1 heard the Speech from the Throne, I saluted its reference to the intention of the government to take certain steps which 1 believe would add to a series of reforms to parliamentary government which have been under way for years. I make particular, favourable reference to the government's announced intention to provide members of parliament as individuals with additional opportunity to work more effectively on behalf of their constituents by giving greater attention to private members' bills. The last government had already done much to help members be more effective parliamentarians by making it possible for them to improve their facilities and staff and by allowing television to report the events which take place in this House.
I was also happy to see reference in the throne speech to the establishment of a select committee to enquire fully into the special needs of handicapped and disabled Canadians. The human rights of these fellow Canadians are easily passed over because all too often they are out of sight and, therefore, out of mind.
1 also was pleased to note that special attention was paid to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector in our society. Although 1 have worked in the fields of commerce and finance myself, most of my subsequent career has been dedicated to service in non-governmental organizations, or N.G.O.'s, as they are called; in the service of the church; in the League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith, and so forth. I have personally witnessed the tremendous contribution such voluntary organizations make, at no cost to the taxpayer. These organizations deserve encouragement, whether their orientations are spiritual, humanitarian, cultural, athletic, philanthropic, or whatever.
Although 1 rejoice to hear these references in the Speech from the Throne, it disappoints me that many of these reforms will lead only to the setting up of committees rather than to action. It sounds like "committees" rather than "commitment". It is, therefore, with deep regret that 1 have to say that although 1 wanted to be optimistic, although I had hoped against hope that I would discern some real progress, some real direction, 1 must now admit to profound disappointment.
The so-called program presented by the government of what it has in store for us fulfils my previous fears of what might happen if we had a Tory government. My analysis and conclusions have not had to be hasty. As members of Parliament we have had a long time, five months, to make our observations, albeit from a distance and through a glass darkly, but now with the throne speech at last face to face. What we see is a government of evasion; it is bland, it is blank, it is empty and void. I have searched deeply into my soul. I have asked myself, is this the kind of Speech from the Throne worthy of a new minority government? Is this speech adequate enough as a basis for legislation or for policy, or as a guide or a plan, or even an outline, as we cross the threshold of the 1980s? What
I find is a vapid, vacuous evasion of the problems of the world and of the challenges to our nation.
At a time when the world is shaken by revolutions and genocide, by oil shortages and arbitrary price hikes, by monetary instability and inflation, by international power plays and Third and Fourth World hunger and destitution, and at a time when our country, under pressure from these external forces, is in need of reassurance of sound policies on energy, interest rates and employment, we listen to the throne speech and wonder whether we are listening to a government that is on another planet. I have been searching my soul, as 1 know millions of Canadians have, and have wondered, after this long time of waiting since the election, whether the intervening time has possibly been used for anything more than to allow the pirates to divide up the political spoils at the captain's table while our Canadian ship of state is floundering on a troubled sea of world tensions in violent economic storms.
Imagine my amazement-our amazement as parliamentarians-to hear the pledge of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in the Speech from the Throne that his policy is "to make my ministers more responsible to you". What inconsistency, what irony, what a paradox! How can they be more responsible to us when for months on end they did not call Parliament and would not give account to us? During all this time the ministers have not been responsible to us in this House nor in the other place. Does this long abstinence from parliamentary government set a precedent, or give any example, or lend any credibility to the principle of making "my ministers more responsible to you"? Hardly, do we feel, have they been responsible to this House.
As was the case for many hon. members, October 9 was the first time 1 ever laid eyes on many of these ministers since the election on May 22, and we had dissolution of Parliament in March. It has taken from May to October before we get our first chance to ask these responsible ministers to give an account. This is a jest. It is a travesty. Some of the ministers still have not had their first turn to speak, to give any account, and we are half way into October.
Most of the backbenchers will not have a chance to ask questions regarding problems in their ridings to these "accountable ministers" until next year. Is this consistent with the stated intent in the speech "to make my ministers more responsible to you", ministers who have not had to give account since May 22, except to the media which has nobly tried to squeeze from this dry rind some content which members of Parliament have yet had no chance to do? Is that a sincere and genuine concern for parliamentary reform, to keep the House closed down and shut while we get government by secret meetings behind closed doors in remote and comfortable retreats where the prying eyes of the dangerous press and members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition could not hear or speak, question or get a reply?
Yes, I am worried by the Speech from the Throne, and I lack confidence in the government that authored it. For exam-

October 15, 1979

pie, what are we told will be the government policy for energy? While in opposition, those hon. members who now form the government had endless months, nay years, to formulate such a policy. But they frittered that time away, those years and years and years, tearing down the policy of the last government, criticizing, nagging, carping and complaining. Their energy went into tearing down the energy policy. No wonder all they now have in their hands are reams of notes on how to tear down and destroy. Destroy PetroCan. Destroy our arrangements with Mexico and Venezuela. Destroy our federal international responsibility and involvement in offshore rights.
Since the election they have had months to do their work, and what do we learn from the throne speech? There is not a word in the speech about PetroCan, the single most important agent the Government of Canada possesses to protect us with regard to the most critical issue we face. This would be a forgiveable oversight if the government had not broken our energy mast in the conflicting orders that have been shouted from its crew members as to whether to raise or drop the sails-sale of PetroCan, no sales, half sales, have a sale, but only where crew members can buy-and as the sails go up and down they are being torn to shreds. They will not catch the wind and take us anywhere but down into the deep. It is a profligate destruction of our heritage. Our country is up and down for sale.
Yes, it is a policy of evasion. They evade the issue with smiles and chuckles while we flounder and our energy mast is splintered and broken. We are a country divided and confused about PetroCan, about energy prices which are not resolved. For this reason prices have already been set and have soared for our winter fuel for homes, transportation and industry, because the middlemen could not wait. It is too late now. The government has failed to chart its course and everyone else has had to make up their own minds. They have taken to the lifeboats to save their medium and small-sized fuel companies. They had no choice, with no guidelines, but to jack up the prices.
Evasion leads to licence. The rich get richer, the powerful more powerful. No wonder we have monopolies like the policy of evasion, of "no decide", of laissez-faire. They can rip us off unfettered, because the government has no policy or, rather, has a policy to evade, to pass, to make no bid. But how can you win the game if you keep giving away your cards and keep on passing? Evasion.
And what does the Speech from the Throne have to say about our foreign policy? It is amazingly evasive through its silence. Just as in the case of silence in the throne speech on Petro-Canada, so there is silence on foreign policy. There is total silence by the government on the handling of the issue of the Middle East. All we know is that a special study is under way, a study triggered by the most blatant and destructive fumbles in Canada's foreign policy for as long as my mind can recall.
The present Prime Minister, seizing upon what appeared to be a popular and meritorious yearning on the part of many, if not most, Canadians to move the Canadian embassy from Tel
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
Aviv to Jerusalem, which is the capital of Israel, during the election took this ultimately desirable and even sacred issue and dragged it down into the realm of partisan election politics.
What all those who love Israel want, whether we are Jews or non Jews, is that the issue of the moving of the embassy be based on the merits of the case, and be timed and effected in a way that contributes to the peace process. Jerusalem is a holy city and it should not have been a brick-bat for partisan argumentation. The ultimate objective of moving our embassy is too important to have hastily thrown it into an election contest which gave Canadians the impression it was done for votes instead of on merit. And worse yet, after we warned over and over again of the delicate nature of this matter and of the need for education, information, preparation and understanding, our advice was spurned, and in cavalier fashion the issue was pressed, without the needed resolve to see it through, which resulted inexorably in total debacle.
It was no favour which the captain of the election strategists did for Israel by making such a self-serving promise and dragging the sacred name of Yerushalayim-the city of peace-to the level of vitriolic argument. That damage can never be fully undone, because try as one might to rectify it, the discussion of the embassy has been totally removed now from the merits of the case itself. And the irony of it all is that the good reason and the only reason that the embassy should ultimately be moved is based entirely on the merits of the case. The timing and the setting and the motives were all-important. And it all was trampled upon for the sake of pledges made for opportunistic reasons and timing seemingly unrelated to the justice of the cause at stake.
The result of this lack of policy, and then of vacillation instead of swift, decisive action one way or another, has been to compound our troubles. It has thrust us into a situation where Canada now appears to be susceptible to blackmail, bullying and belittling. We have desecrated the name of Jerusalem, lost our honour, and now we decide that it is time to find out, not only what to do, but also how much damage we did; how much tribute we will have to pay or how many compromises we will have to make to regain lost friends or contracts. What ignominy! Is this how we protect human rights in the world? What was the message in the Speech from the Throne on the Middle East? Was it that we were not going to be susceptible to backmail, that we have our own policy? Or was it silence or evasion, as with PetroCan?
What do we hear about human rights in the world in this speech? Is there anything at all about genocide or about the hungry in the Fourth World crushed to death by OPEC oil costs and inflation? There is nothing in the speech except that we will be getting a committee on foreign policy. But we do get ministers telling us from the flora side that human rights will come up like flowers, while the fauna side forages upon the money pastures which alone could make our promises to the Third and Fourth Worlds a reality. How sad to see our reputation in the field of foreign affairs, built up so assiduously and patiently by past hon. members like Pearson, Sharp,

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
Jamieson, and the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), brought so swiftly to the level of infamy in the Year of the Child-un enfant terrible? Our foreign policy mast has also been snapped by the hoisting and dropping of sails in a cacophony of discordant orders from the captain and his first mates.
But, Mr. Speaker, these are but a few illustrations of how large and important areas of national and world concern, which have been in the headlines for months, are now passed over by silence and by evasion. The policy-and it is delivered-is evasion; the plan is that the way you keep the citizenry happy is by handing out the new Tory confectionery-Smiles and Chuckles, and snickers-while they divide up the spoils. And can you blame them for chuckling? If you managed to squeeze into power with the second largest popular vote, with a minority of seats in the House, propped up by hon. members belonging to another party which you are meanwhile privately and publicly seducing, and with a minority of seats in the other place, getting aid and comfort from the fact that you are doing so little that the media cannot get a target on you, you would chuckle too, Mr. Speaker.
Who could ask for more than a throne speech without commitment and a media that is left open-mouthed and speechless? The Speech from the Throne is amazing, not for what it says but for what it does not say. Never has so little said so little in so few words to so many.
Mr. Speaker, I have had to save till last my deepest concern. It frightens me the most. It has to do with the survival of this country, with the Canada I love. I see under this government the division of this country into satrapies like Chinese provinces under the war lords of the Kuomintang, each war lord reigning sovereign in his province, resulting in a confusion of policies, in competitive wars between provinces for businesses, head offices and investments, in raising barriers to migration of workers from other provinces, like the wars between the war lords of old.
What is the philosophical justification for a federal government that in the name of "less government" really means almost no federal government and more and more provincial government, which means more inequality and more divisive forces unleashed? This laissez-faire policy which sells out Canada comes under the confectionery name not of "Chuckles" but of "community of communities". Behind this exercise in semantics is the insidious suggestion that the way we can get unity is to stop the confrontation, and to hand over, in the interests of dialogue and understanding, those rights and responsibilities which our constitution and our Supreme Court state this Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, is expected to exercise. Some dialogue!
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think I know something about dialogue. The dialogue that has come about through ecumenism has been the greatest event in this century. Religious wars and hatreds have given way to respectful dialogue between Catholics, Protestants and Jews. The ancient walls of

contempt have fallen away through dialogue. And all this has been premised upon the concept that in dialogue you call people into being rather than to cease to be. It is right, and one thing to call the provinces into being. That the Fathers of Confederation more than did. But it is another thing to say that the federal government should not have that same right, which was the central goal and objective of the Fathers of Confederation-a strong central government.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of pious criticism from others about the danger of confrontation. But, Mr. Speaker, dialogue is called confrontation. One speaks of the "confrontation of dialogue". It means that in dialogue one does not evade the issues. One does not dissolve oneself. One does not diminish oneself. One does not assimilate, capitulate, surrender. So at present we are not getting dialogue. In fact, the terminology "community of communities", used in conjunction with the criticism that in the past we have had too much confrontation between the federal and provincial governments, is being used as a cover in the retreat from a federal system to a confederation of ten states, or is it twelve now? It seems to be part of the grand design of the Conservative party to hack us up. First we had the blueprint of "two nations"-deux nations. Now it has proliferated. Now it is a "community of communities", maybe something like "ten nations"-dix nations ou plus. And if you throw in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, maybe 12 tribes-douze nations-ou presque\
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, it is on a dangerous course that our ship of state is floundering. It is no course at all. It is not a dialogue. It is not a discussion out in the open. It is not a facing of issues and facts. There are secret discussions where the media are not present. There are, worse yet, secret deals. It is not just once or twice; it is the way things now are done. The war lords put down their demands, linked often with their political interests, and the federal government in private agreements gives away to them what belongs to the family of Canada and describes this process as a "community of communities". Mr. Speaker, that is not a community. Let us not hide behind the subterfuge of words. Canada is at stake. Evasion is not dialogue; evasion is anti-dialogical. It is unhealthy. Dialogue means confrontation. It means that the federal government, this Parliament and all of us who are members have the right to hear, to listen, to be in the dialogue. It means to have open deals openly arrived at.
Ontario has the right, not just the premier and his minority party but the majority of the people, like the people of my riding, the people of Toronto, the people of the province, to hear what those deals are that give away our future as Canadians. Our heritage, our offshore energy and mineral rights for 200 miles, our resources, belong to Canadians. We have to be at the table where all can see the hands and learn to share. The federal government has the right, nay, the duty, the responsibility, to stand for all of us, to protect all of us. Rather than for this government to appeal to the greedy hopes of war lords in each province that their area might strike it rich, we have to make sure that all Canadians strike it rich.
October 15, 1979

Instead, Mr. Speaker, we have evasion. We have silence. We have paradoxical phrases like "community of communities" which sound a lot too much like "sovereignty-association", an "Alberta heritage fund for Canadians"-Albertan Canadians, that is-and "humble pride", or is it "proud humility"?
The Speech from the Throne bodes ill that the government will continue to be passive, will avoid difficult decisions and evade responsibilities. It will continue to play hide and go seek with the press, to make agreements secretly arrived at, to pass out goodies to some provinces that they have no mandate from Parliament to pass on. They seem to hope to appeal to some greedy impulse of some provincial leaders that they just might strike it rich, rather than appealing to them that through co-operation as Canadians they might strike it "equal". They offer to sell or give away some of our Crown corporations, appealing to the profit motive, instead of holding them in sacred trust for all Canadians for this and future generations.
Mr. Speaker, what we have seen so far is not dialogue by the federal government. Rather, it is a policy of passing out the goodies, and it fits all too well into the mentality of cynical machine politics, of political patronage, of how they keep them happy. But what will they do tomorrow when all has been given away from the federal store and there is nothing left, when they all start to fight with one another? Mr. Speaker, at present I see no dream. At present I sense no vision. I see only each of us being sent into self-centred solitudes and the dark night of reaction is setting in.
Ultimately we will have to go back to statesmanlike, courageous leadership that will resume the dialogue, which by definition involves confrontation, to leadership that on behalf of the federal government will speak the truth in love to this nation, singly and in its parts, and say "Our heritage fund is Canada".


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee to the House that I will speak no doom and gloom such as we have just heard from the the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille).
My colleagues, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), are to be congratulated for the superb manner in which they moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I join with other hon. members in endorsing the Speaker's election to his high office. Having watched him on television for quite some time and now being in this great house and watching him in person, my long-time admiration for his abilities has been more than reinforced. I offer my best wishes to him. We on this side of the House will try to make life in this session pleasant for him. To the Deputy Speaker and to the hon. members for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), I offer my best wishes as well.
I represent the riding of Brampton-Georgetown, comprised of Brampton, a community in the region of Peel, population
The Address-Mr. McDermid
125.000,	and the old town of Georgetown, now a part of Halton Hills, a community in the region of Halton, population
19.000.	Both of these communities have growing populations. My riding is the fourth largest in Canada in terms of electors. The mayor of Halton Hills, Peter Pomeroy, and the mayor of the city of Brampton, Jim Archdekin, lead two very active and fastgrowing communities.
The past two members of the Ontario legislature have given honour to the community of Brampton, both being worthy members and both being premiers of the province of Ontario. Colonel Tom Kennedy was the provincial member for Peel from 1919 to 1959, forty years, with a brief break between 1934 and 1937. Our member of the provincial legislature is the hon. William G. Davis, the present premier, who just celebrated 20 years in the legislature serving Peel, Peel North, and now Brampton. He was honoured Friday past by his constituents, former constituents and friends. These are large shoes for me to fill federally-names like Sam Charters, Richard Blaine, John Pallett, Ellwood Madill and, yes, such liberals as Bruce Beer and Ross Milne. But the man I idolized, and who was lost to Canada at a relatively young age, the man who first attracted me to politics, was Gordon Graydon, who graced this House from 1935 to 1953 and was opposition House leader. His widow, Daisy Graydon, still lives in Brampton and is a great help to me and I appreciate her support.
Georgetown citizens have had excellent representation in the Ontario legislature, for instance, the hon. Jim Snow, the hon. George Kerr and Julian Reed. Federally, names like Sybill Bennett, Sandy Best, Terry O'Connor and across the House I am sure hon. members remember Dr. Harry Harley and Dr. Frank Philbrook. Now I have the honour to represent the riding. I would sincerely like to thank the citizens of Brampton-Georgetown for their votes. I will do all within my power to justify their support.
I am proud of both Brampton and Georgetown, Brampton being my home town, Georgetown being my father's home town. My great grandfather came to this country, a tea merchant from Glasgow, and opened a general store in Georgetown. My grandfather was postmaster in Georgetown and my father a United Church minister, who served the congregation of St. Paul's United Church for 26 years in Brampton.
Brampton and Georgetown have expanding and new businesses; for example, CN's new Malport, Dominion Glass Co. Ltd. which just opened a $10 million expansion. Ford's national parts depot, American Motors, Northern Telecom, Kitchens of Sara Lee, Neilson's, Smith and Stone, Abitibi Paper, and many many others all contributing to the economic well-being of the two communities.
There is still a small but significant rural area in Brampton and Georgetown. There are productive dairy farms, beef farms and produce farms which grow some great apples. The Gray brothers, two young farmers, have just invested over a quarter of a million dollars in a computerized milking parlour in my riding. This sort of investment shows great faith in the future of Canada and in the field of agriculture in the area. It is the

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. McDermid
home of the world famous Armstrong brothers standard bred breeding farm, which is the home of the Armbro horses who win their share of purses at standard bred tracks around the world. In memory of the late Elgin Armstrong and Ted Armstrong, the founding brothers, a new multi-million dollar facility was opened recently just north of Brampton by the premier. Elgin Armstrong's son, Charles, is now running the Armstrong business and was named businessman of the year this past week by the Brampton board of trade. My congratulations to Charles.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that I represent an exciting and growing part of the province of Ontario and 1 look forward to representing it for many years. Seated geographically to your left-and, 1 might add, well placed, because that is where they all are politically-are a group of hon. members who like to talk about redistributing wealth, a very worth-while ideal. But all of them want to redistribute the wealth before it is made.
The new Government of Canada clearly recognizes that we cannot redistribute what we have not first created. The previous administration tried, heaven knows they tried, and in doing so, plunged this country into a deficit that is costing every Canadian taxpayer $700 per year just to pay the interest, never mind paying back the capital that is owing. It is the fastest rising cost in government. What a legacy to leave the young people of Canada! We in the government plan to rectify this situation so we can proudly say to our young people, "Here, take this country, we pass it on to you in great shape without that albatross, that huge debt, to drag you down."
There are a number of items on my checklist that this government and the people of Canada must do to reduce the debt and tackle inflation. We must realize that there is something decidedly illogical about demanding at one and the same time more and more government services, less and less taxation, higher and higher living standards and the adoption of a zero growth economic approach. We must tackle our balance of payment problem by recognizing that we are a trading nation with a pressing need for a healthy, vigorous and productive manufacturing sector. We must recognize the crucial role of profits and of other forms of savings in making this possible. Profit on this side of the House is not a dirty word. We must create a fair and just environment for the foreign capital which, like it or not, we are going to require in the future. Most important of all, we must create the type of domestic climate that will provide individual Canadians with the incentive and ability to furnish more and more of their country's capital needs. We must recognize that we cannot allow our unit costs of production to get out of step with those of our major trading partners, and we must realize the irreparable damage which indiscriminate and irresponsible use of the strike weapon-whatever its short term gain to the participants-will do to our ability to survive in the international marketplace.
We must move quickly to reduce significantly our per capita consumption of energy through appropriate conservation measures. We must now tap our frontier resources and mount a massive effort to develop alternative energy technologies.

Above all, and I say this for my friends on the socialist side of the House, we on this side will not stop apologizing for the enterprise system, as they like to do. Any economic system that can deliver what ours has, despite the roadblocks that have been consistently thrown in its way, has a great deal going for it.
It is trendy and chic in certain quarters to continually castigate our economic way of life for the way in which it supposedly favours the privileged at the expense of the underprivileged. Any objective and unbiased analysis of Canada's social development policies and income redistribution programs, however, will quickly give the lie to such an assertion. Furthermore, I would remind those who persist in perpetuating this myth that there is probably no greater injustice that a society can perpetuate on the weak and helpless than to erode the will and initiative of the enterprising and the strong.
I must also confess to some degree of bewilderment at the proposition put forward by the opposition parties that the road to economic salvation lies in ever-increasing government involvement in the workings of the competitive enterprise system. It is well established that the highest living standards are enjoyed by nations where the enterprise system predominates. On the other hand, countries where state capitalism is the vogue are certainly not noted either for their high standard of living or for the efficient and equitable distribution of goods and services. In an article outlining the superiority of the market economy, Gottfried Haverler, professor of international trade at Harvard University, asks:
How else is one to explain the wide difference in living standards that exists between West and East Germany; between Greece and Yugoslavia; and between Austria and Czechoslovakia, bearing in mind that the paired in each case enjoyed comparable living standards in the pre-communist past.
Certainly our competitive enterprise system may have its faults and shortcomings, and we should not hesitate to move in order to correct them, but let us not lose sight of our system's strengths-its respect for the dignity of human achievement, its rejection of the indignity of human enslavement and its uncanny ability to harness the power of human endeavour toward the realization of common goals. It is these basic and fundamental strengths that provide the competitive enterprise system with its aura of perpetual relevance, which in turn forms the core of its superiority over all other forms of economic endeavour. And this human achievement, the strengths of our system, will be allowed to flourish under this government. That is what the message is in the Speech from the Throne delivered so capably by His Excellency the Governor General.
There are many other aspects of the Speech from the Throne that please me, and in particular the statement that "in co-operation with the provinces and industry, a national tourism strategy will be developed". I have had the pleasure of chairing a caucus committee on tourism this past number of weeks. We met with the Canadian government office of tourism, provincial government officials of tourism and many members of the private sector involved in this important


October 15, 1979

business, and it is important. Tourism in Canada is a $11 billion business, accounting for 5 per cent of the gross national product and employing over one million people. Eighty per cent of the tourist businesses are classified as small business. For far too long this important sector of the economy has been virtually overlooked by previous administrations and this must be changed. It was obvious to the committee after hearing the various presentations that duplication of efforts was being experienced in Canada. It was also obvious that the foreign travelling public was confused in that they are being bombarded by the federal government and the provincial governments in marketing of all types without apparent co-ordination in their efforts.
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada or TIAC, an association which is the umbrella organization in Canada, is actively promoting a tourism plan for Canada with the Canadian government spearheading the activities. After many hours of discussion the committee agreed it was a very necessary component if we in Canada are to improve our tourism deficit position. The committee's presentation was made to the minister responsible, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). It was agreed that this was vital to the well-being of tourism in Canada and would become the policy of this government, and there is no dust settling after that decision. At the federal-provincial meeting of tourism ministers this week in Newfoundland this matter will be discussed.
The objectives of the plan will be to maximize the contribution to the national economy, keeping in mind the following: our international balance of payments; the quality of life and development of the community; the conservation of the environment of the country; the preservation of the nation's cultural heritages; the special contribution tourism can make to regional economic expansion; and the optimization of Canada's rich resources capable of supporting a tourism industry. The objectives are to be reached by dividing the tourism industry into two areas, marketing and industry development. The task is great but our government is dedicated to the upgrading of the tourism industry and to co-operating much more fully with the private sector and the provinces in achieving this goal.
Many other recommendations have flowed from the committee's work, such as an awareness program for Canadians of how valuable tourism is to the economy and to them directly; that the attitude of government staff who come in direct contact with the travelling public be improved; that a closer liaison between Parks Canada and the tourism industry be achieved; that a faster, more efficient method of tourism statistics gathering be devised; and last but not least, a recognition of the importance of the tourism industry be expressed by the government in adding the title of "tourism" to the Minister of State for International Trade's title. The industry has asked for their own minister and ministry. It would be irresponsible of me to recommend another ministry when in fact we are trying not to create but to streamline various departments, but I would urge the Prime Minister and his
The Address-Mr. Bujold
government to give very serious consideration to this request so that tourism's importance in our Canadian economy will be given due recognition.
As a new member, may I publicly thank everyone, the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues, my constituents of Brampton-Georgetown, my colleagues from all sides of the House, the staff on the Hill and in the various ministries, and my own personal staff for helping me over the first few months. It has been an exciting and educational period in my new chosen profession, and I look forward to a very productive session.
Mir. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased and honoured to take part today in the throne speech debate. First allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you for the trust shown in you by the House of Commons and especially by the government party which recommended your appointment to the position that you now hold. Your sense of responsibilities, your integrity as well as your fairness are the qualities recognized by all members of the House. At the risk of repeating what has already been said, I wish to point out that the role you will play in the months to come will surely not be without any difficulty. 1 therefore wish you much success in your duties as Speaker of the House.
I also extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House. I am also pleased to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Undoubtedly it was for them the best possible way to begin this new legislature.
My preamble, Mr. Speaker, would not be complete if I failed to pay tribute to my predecessor in this House from 1962 to 1979. I refer to Mr. Albert Bechard, a man who always represented with dignity the constituency of Bonaven-ture from 1962 to 1968 and that of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine from 1968 to 1979. I wish him well in his new job as Canada's Consul General in Louisiana. Finally, I would like to thank most sincerely the voters of the riding of Bonaven-ture-lles-de-la-Madeleine for the faith they have put in me during the last general election. I will do everything I can not to disappoint them as they expect a lot from their federal representative, considering their remoteness from large centres as well as the many communication difficulties they face.
On this first opportunity I am given to address this House, Mr. Speaker, I will not describe the great resources and beauties of the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. I will do rather like my eminent colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and invite all my hon. colleagues to come and visit the Gaspe area and the lles-de-la-Madeleine, as thousands of tourists from this country and all around the world do every
198

areas. This would avoid the enormous deficits incurred by airlines currently serving the area, and give a better transportation network to the various districts in eastern Canada. Hopefully the sale of Nordair will be a step in that direction. And I take this opportunity to invite the Minister of Transport to speed up this matter which has been under consideration long enough.
As 1 emphasized earlier, the new government has no apparent concern for the vital segments of our economy. Farmers were expecting a lot from the throne speech. They were greatly disappointed. Not a word, not a policy statement pointing to this government's approach in that area. What will our dairy producers do in the face of milk quota auctioneering? How is the problem of the astronomical cost of transporting produce into the large centres going to be solved? It is my hope the new government will not do as they did in the case of the Montreal harbour strike, when they waited for months before acting, letting disputes drag on and on. Mr. Speaker, our farmers deserve better treatment. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will take strong action, I hope that agriculture will become as much a priority for this government as energy and fisheries.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to a significant omission in the throne speech, the constitutional crisis now facing the nation. Like my hon. leader, I am far from believing that the new leadership the right hon. Prime Minister is apparently trying to establish is capable of solving the Canadian crisis. I doubt that the constitutional problem can be solved by granting every provincial demand. Indeed the right hon. Prime Minister does not seem to pay much attention to that most urgent and serious problem in Canada, if the press conference he gave last week is any indication. The Prime Minister stated the significance of the referendum should not be exaggerated. He felt that it was much more important to ensure a permanent federal presence in Quebec.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like the Prime Minister and his colleagues to tell us how saying no to the decentralization of various departments within Quebec will ensure this presence in Quebec. Those are some of the questions I am directing to him. He also stated, and I quote:
-that the referendum was in fact only one of many events to take place in 1980.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this fails to recognize the importance of the situation in the province of Quebec and the seriousness of the constitutional crisis we are going through. What is still worse, Mr. Speaker, we have heard his Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis) indicate that the government's participation will be minimal. How could it be otherwise, for they have only three hon. members in the House of Commons and two ministers in the Senate? So, how can that presence make itself felt strongly? Obviously the minister had no other argument to plead in that regard. But there is worse when he says, and I quote:
The Address-Mr. Brisco
In addition, we do not have the strength to wage a big campaign in Quebec. One must recognize one's weaknesses.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, that is implicit recognition of the fact that the Progressive Conservative government does only represent the nine other Canadian provinces and does not represent the province of Quebec in the House of Commons. As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we are now up against a secessionist government in Quebec, which will not hesitate to resort to all the means necessary to achieve its ends, and by handing it certain powers the Canadian government will not allay its hunger.
In the face of the gathering storm in Quebec, I feel that those who hold deep convictions about Canadian federalism, and specially the members of Parliament, must see to it that this country remain a model of unity despite the diversity of its parts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that some of the suggestions of the opposition, in particular with regard to Quebec, will not be turned down in order that the unity we all hold dear might be strengthened.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, for the past several days in this House and for the past several months out on the hustings and in the media the Liberals and the NDP alike have been exclaiming and proclaiming the virtues of Petro-Canada. Never before on any one issue have we heard such righteous indignation and such hyperbole. What it all boils down to is state ownership versus ownership by the people of Canada. When did one single taxpayer outside the board room of Petro-Canada have any say in its operation?


An hon. Member:: Or any benefit.


An hon. Member:: Or any interest.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Or any interest. When did the taxpayers' representatives right here in the House of Commons have any say in Petro-Canada after its creation? How often has Petro-Canada appeared before any standing committee of Parliament? I can remember once. Perhaps there were other occasions, but they were exceedingly few. Once in 1977 the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works was dealing with the estimates, and hon. members who have served on standing committees will know there is a host of wide-ranging questions which can and are asked. I wonder if anybody on that occasion in 1977 asked about the president of Petro-Canada, the only oil company executive in Alberta being driven around in a chauffeur-driven limousine, the highest paid oil executive in Canada. That is the kind of aura which was established then and is continued now. That is the kind of aura which would be furthered and fostered by my socialist friends across the floor.
When have we had any opportunity to comment on the expenditure of $1.5 billion of public funds to purchase Pacific Petroleums? Was it necessary to purchase the whole thing? We hear exclamations that we want a Canadian identity. I could not agree more, but some 30 per cent of Pacific Petroleums-indeed, a little more-was already owned by

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Brisco
Canadians, and it was just bought out lock, stock and barrel. Canadian money was used to buy Pacific Petroleums. I do not know whose philosophy that was, but it surely is not the philosophy of this government.
Canadians need the opportunity to share in the successes of Petro-Canada and in the policy of Petro-Canada. If there had been any policy in Petro-Canada, the uranium exploration now taking place in the southern Okanagan through its subsidiary, Pacific Petroleums, would have been halted, at least until the Bates commission of inquiry in British Columbia was completed.
That is an issue which finds the NDP on all four sides of the question, one federally, one Saskatchewan, one British Columbia and, I suppose, one somewhere else. Members of the NDP have a policy for every province and another one which they toss out federally. It will be interesting to hear what their plan is. Hopefully they will appear before the nuclear energy inquiry which we as a government intend to establish.
If there had been any say by the taxpayers of Canada in the policy of Petro-Canada, certainly the taxpayers of southern British Columbia and in my constitutency would have asked Petro-Canada to lay off, at least until the Bates commission of inquiry was completed. We never had that kind of conversation.
The impression which has been left by hon. members opposite is that a Conservative government would tear asunder and rip the guts out of Petro-Canada and trash it. When did this party say that? We have never said that. Where does that story come from? It comes from hon. members opposite.
I heard the eloquent although supplicated speech by the leader of the NDP at the weekend. He made comparisons about Chargex and Master Charge and told Canadians how to operate their accounts. The New Democratic Party is so bankrupt it would have trouble getting a Master Charge card. The task force report will probably indicate to all Canadians that the word "dismantling" does not exist in our vocabulary. The government has $1 billion in equity in Petro-Canada, and Petro-Canada has $1.5 billion of debt. That is $2.5 billion for starters, and it has a profit picture of a few million dollars.
Two hundred and fifty per cent of the equity of PetroCan is an added equity, and you could not give it away under the present circumstances and framework, so we have to turn that around. Canada and Canadians need their own private oil company, aided and abetted by a strong energy policy, a policy that is now being developed by this government. What is PetroCan, sir? It is a government-owned company with confused purposes and, at times, questionable management.


An hon. Member:: It's a shell.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I do not like throwing into question the management of any corporation, but I can remember the time a month and a half or two months ago when, in Calgary as members serving on the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group, we were

presented with a very slick presentation by PetroCan at the Glenbow centre. They would have us believe that by 1985 Canada will have icebreaking LNG tankers that will ride up on the ice, crash through, rise up and again crash through, and they will carry Canada's natural gas from the Arctic to the Atlantic seaboard. That was a remarkable proposal, remarkable because we do not yet have the ships. I do not know whether or not they are in the design stage-perhaps they are. I asked them where they are going on the seaboard, where they are going on the Atlantic coast with that LNG. Nobody wants them because the stuff is so highly explosive.
I must say that, in an environmental sense, LNG does make sense. It is environmentally so clean that once it explodes, nothing is left. So in that sense it is non-polluting. But when I asked a senior official of PetroCan about the explosive qualities of LNG, he asked, "What explosive qualities? It does not explode." Why do you think they kept them off the Pacific coast? The man had not done his homework.
Then PetroCan would have us believe they are going to establish pipelines on the islands, run them under the oceans in the Arctic and they would have pick-up points along the way. The official did not say anything about ice scouring of the ocean bottom and how they would place those pipelines below the level of scouring. I do not think he knew there was any scouring being done up there. Hon. members will know that the Beaufort sea in the Arctic ocean is a very shallow body of water and that scouring is probably the major cause of concern. So if I say that the management is questionable, I hope I can be forgiven but certainly the slick presentation we received at Calgary left a great deal to be desired.
The Germans did it with Volkswagen, the Alberta government did it with Alberta Gas Trunk, more recently BCRIC did it in British Columbia, the most successful new equity issue put on the market in recent history. How well 1 remember the remarks, when flying back to my constituency, of the former member for New Westminster who has gone to his reward in the provincial legislature in B.C., sitting in the wings ready to devour the present leader of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Quite a mouthful!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Quite a mouthful is right. He will suffer from acute indigestion before he has finished that task. I remember the former member's remarks because he said to me, about BCRIC, "What an excellent move, what an excellent idea, and we do not have anything with which to combat it." They announced, as a party out there in British Columbia, that if you have a few shares and you are a member of the party, send them to the NDP, they could use them. Well, I wonder how many members have sent their shares to the NDP, those free shares that were issued at $6 and went up to around $8.25. I am not sure what they are worth today, but I am sure there are many people from all parties in British Columbia today who check BCRIC on the stockmarket every day.
October 15, 1979

What Canada needs and what Canadians want is a Canadian-owned company with a clear direction and able to compete with the multinationals, a company with the financial structure to stand on its own feet, a company not politically oriented, not an empire of bureaucrats but a company of Canadians in every sense of the word.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: 1 do not subscribe, nor does my government, to the socialist philosophy that only a small elite, either here in Ottawa or out west in Calgary, can run anything and everything. So 1 say: Let us get on with the task of energy self-sufficiency and, at the same time, destroy the myth created by the opposition that we would hand PetroCan over to the multinationals. I know there is concern across Canada about the destiny of PetroCan and I can understand that concern, particularly in light of the stories of the Liberals and the NDP. Canadians are opposed to having PetroCan turned over to the multinationals, and I do not blame them at all. So are we, and that is the point that the people opposite fail to recognize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I wonder just where the opposition believes we should be going with PetroCan now. Do they feel we should leave it as it is?


An hon. Member:: Expand it.


An hon. Member:: Put money in it.


Robert Hylton Brisco: We hear all kinds of hoots and cries from the brainless ones, sir. But if that is the case, are we going to have any kind of guarantee that they will be responsible to Parliament? The outfit across the way would not want it responsible to Parliament. They never had it that way and they surely would not want to begin now.
Forty-four years ago, which is nearly half a century ago, Kootenay West was represented for the last time by a member of the government. That is a long time in the doldrums. In that interval, three members have represented Kootenay West until my election in 1974, and all three of them, regardless of their political philosophy, have served that constituency to the best of their ability. There was Billy Esling who served from 1925 to 1945, a man who resigned in 1945 because he became virtually blind. He was succeeded by Bert Herridge, a fine gentleman. I am sure there are many members in the House who have been here for a long time, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who remember him. We called him the squire of the Kootenays. He was succeeded by Ran Harding who came to the House after 23 years of representing his constituency in the provincial House. Each of them in his own way worked with diligence on behalf of the constituency.
1 do not think anyone would deny that, in some respects at least, it is harder to represent a constituency when you are on the government side. Certainly 1 think we would all recognize that in opposition there are those frustrations which rest on the
The Address-Mr. Brisco
failure to fulfil everything you would like to fulfil in your constituencies that might possibly be accomplished in government. I have some reservations today whether many of the aspirations of members on the government side, let alone the opposition, will be fulfilled in terms of hon. members' own constituencies until we are able to shed ourselves of the financial chaos and disaster, the reign of fiscal terror perpetrated on Canadians by 11 years particularly, and 16 years generally, of Liberal policy.
I note that in the throne speech reference is made to a freedom of information act. I only suggest that the government consider implementing that measure before considering a national uranium inquiry. If the experience in many provinces, Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, is any example, it is important that we have a freedom of information act in place before we start asking questions in terms of a uranium or nuclear energy inquiry.
I note, sir, that there is provision for improvements in spouses' allowances. Certainly members on this side, and my colleague on the other side, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, recognize the time spent both in this House and in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Human Resources trying to persuade the government of that day to remove the inequities in spouses' allowances.
1 am also pleased to see in the throne speech a recognition of the concerns and problems of Canada's veterans. It is, indeed, unfortunate that in the last government we had an apologist for a minister, a man without clout in government in terms of representation of our veterans. Again there are those in this House who should be mentioned particularly as having fought for the welfare of Canada's veterans. I think of Jack Marshall, who has gone to the other place, Bill Knowles, who is no longer a member, having retired after many years of service, our own member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), our present Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon), and, yes again, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
1 note also in the throne speech a concern about FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I share that concern, a concern which certainly existed when we were in the opposition, and nothing has happened since to relieve that concern. In fact, I suppose my concerns have been reinforced.
I can remember when Salmo Forest Products Ltd., an American company sold to an American company operating in Canada, had an application before FIRA. The application was rejected because the proposition was not going to provide any significant benefit to Canada, particularly in terms of new employees. What did that company do? It laid off 50 employees on the excuse that some kind of legislation in the United States obliged it as a small company-and I question that-to follow certain rules which provided that they could not have more than 500 employees, or something like that, on their total payroll and still be involved in the forest industry cutting logs from a national forest in the state of Idaho. That

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Brisco
company laid off 50 employees and re-submitted an amended application to FIRA stating it was going to hire 50 employees. You can imagine what happened. The application was approved and the shift that was laid off was hired again. Does that strike you as responsibility?
We are also going to be asked to extend the powers of Parliament. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, once remarked that parliamentarians at one time did have power in this House to take the kind of actions that Canadians deserved, to take positive steps and to assume responsibility. That power disappeared and we know when that happened. What did we get in place of that power? We got a raise in pay. Everyone got a raise in pay in the hope that that would keep members happy and quiet. It was felt members would not bellyache after they had received an increase in their salaries. The government then just took away parliamentary powers. What a disastrous trade-off that was.
Another concern that is touched on in the Speech from the Throne relates to spending restraint. During the last election campaign I said on more than one platform that the people should elect the party which promises that it will endorse and implement the recommendations of the Lambert commission and the recommendations of Auditors General. Did we hear members of the opposition say they supported this? With their kind of policies and their expansion of the bureaucracy how could they support economic accountability and efficiency? How could these people support that? Is the record of the last 16 years any evidence that they could support it?
The Auditor General makes certain recommendations in his report to members of the House, but who hoots, hollers, jeers and denies the whole thing? I suggest it is those members across the way. If a party promised no other thing to Canadians but that it would implement recommendations of economy, efficiency and accountability, it should be elected by the people of Canada. They have done that and we will fulfil that promise. Before the end of two years we will terminate that period we have seen from the other side of monetary madness and financial irresponsibility.
Work is already under way to restore accountability to the people who pay the bills; the people in the galleries, the people out there across this nation, more particularly the people of Kootenay West who had enough perception, in spite of the fact that they elected a couple of socialists provincially, to know that a socialist federally is not going to serve their purposes.


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might have the consent of the House to revert to the tabling of documents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to revert to the tabling of documents for the purpose of presenting a report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETRO-CANADA TABLING OF TASK FORCE REPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the report of the Task Force on Petro-Canada.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Trudeau) (p. 37).
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a Miss Jasmine Hubjer in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Jesse Philip Flis: I am sorry, I am learning the rules, as you know, Mr. Speaker. The young student, whose teachers are on strike in Peel County, is here in this classroom to get a first-hand education.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: In this, my first speech as the representative for Parkdale-High Park, I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) on his reappointment as Speaker of this House of Commons. The wisdom of the members here in showing this confidence in him has been demonstrated amply in the past, as it will continue to be in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I extend similar congratulations to you as the Deputy Speaker. Congratulations are also in order to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), and I am very honoured that he is here in person to hear my maiden speech. Though the criticism from this side of the House will oftentimes be pointed and harsh, I need not remind him that we share the ultimate objective as members of this House of Commons which will guide us in our deliberations, that being the good government of this nation.
Parkdale-High Park is situated in the west end of Toronto and was created out of two federal constituencies, High Park-Humber Valley and Parkdale. Our constituency houses the Canadian National Exhibition, Ontario Place, Sunnyside Swimming Pavilion for which we hope the new government will give us some funds to restore its historical nature, and the famous High Park.
For my own part, I very much identify with the mosaic concept of Canada as it is often described by our leader, the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau). Boasting more than two dozen identifiable ethnic strains, Parkdale-
October 15, 1979

High Park easily touches all corners of this planet. Its inhabitants include Canadian Indians, English, Polish, Ukranian, Germans, Austrians, Lithuanians, Maltese, Italians, Spanish, Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, East Indians, West Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Greeks, Portuguese, Irish, Scots, Filipinos, Latvians, Estonians, French, and many others, including Inuit. There are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions too numerous to mention. There are some that are very wealthy and some not so wealthy. I have so far enumerated only the differences.
What binds these people together? They are bound by a common bond of being Canadians. They each have a personal identity based on their ethnic heritage which they have been encouraged to preserve. My identity happens to be Polish. I am proud to be a descendant of a culture that has a 1,000 year history of Christianity, and a culture that has been blessed with producing today's Roman Catholic Pope, John Paul II.
To answer the question further what binds these people together, I would like to quote from a speech made in this House 22 years ago by a gentleman who now sits in the other chamber after many years of distinguished service. The hon. Senator Stanley Haidasz said of the constituency which I now represent:
This enviable mosaic, composed of different shapes, sizes, and colours is, may 1 assure you, strongly cemented by a common allegiance to the Crown and a common Canadian citizenship but also by convictions of loyalty, pride, and faith in the past, present, and future of Canada.
As the present member for Parkdale-High Park, I would not hesitate to offer my riding as a model of co-operation amidst diversity for all of Canada. Racism is a reality in many communities today, a reality based on ignorance of the changing nature of Canadian society. Co-operation and living in harmony such as I see in Parkdale-High Park are based on knowledge, understanding, appreciation, and respect for each other.
I would be remiss if I did not at this time offer my congratulations to the community of Parkdale on this, the occasion of its centennial. The Parkdale crest bears the words "Progress and Economy", words which will be a guiding influence for the community during its next 100 years. Perhaps the present government would consider adopting them as its motto also.
A Speech from the Throne in essence is a blueprint for the future. The role of the government is therefore to lead us into that period. 1 regret that the Speech from the Throne which opened this Thirty-first Parliament is long on verbiage and magnanimous exhortations, but lacking in genuine commitment to action by this government.
One province is about to vote on its continued existence within the Canadian federation. This is not considered important enough by the government to require mention in the Speech from the Throne. We have a promise to amend the preamble to the Immigration Act to acknowledge the multicultural reality of Canada. If the government is serious about a commitment to multiculturalism, I challenge it to entrench the principle and support of multiculturalism in a revised Canadi-
The Address-Mr. Flis
an constitution, and I challenge the new government to bring the constitution home where it belongs. My constituents and I are insulted that a mature country such as Canada does not have ultimate authority over its own constitution.
The Prime Minister has said that he has contributed more to federalism since coming to power than the right hon. member for Mount Royal accomplished in 11 years. Ignoring the dubious nature of this statement, I would urge the government to put forth proposals leading toward the renewal of the federalism so as to convince Quebeckers that there is a new image and new substance to federalism as the Prime Minister indicated in Montreal last month. The time for action is now, in this Parliament.
The intent of the government with regard to Petro-Canada remains a puzzle even after the Speech from the Throne. Its fate was a major plank in the electoral platform of the present government, but no mention of it appears in the speech. The persistent equivocation which has been the hallmark of this ministry is most clearly demonstrated in regard to PetroCan. Let me read a few quotations. As quoted on March 24, 1977, in the Calgary Herald the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) stated:
Obviously, if it's a thriving operation, we'd be crazy to shut it down.
Given the multi-million dollar assets of the firm at this time, Mr. Speaker, I will resist the temptation to editorialize on that observation. On April 6, 1979, in Winnipeg, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, now the right hon. Prime Minister, stated, "I believe that it's a dud". Well I believe that we have a "dud" of a government if that is his assessment of PetroCan. On July 20, 1979, in the Calgary Herald the headline read:
Andre easing PetroCan stance.
Again from the Calgary Herald on August 11, 1979, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was reported as follows:
The minister said that the concept of the need for a state oil company had changed dramatically since 1974 when Petro-Canada was created. Since then, dwindling oil supplies have underscored the need to ensure security of supply, he said.
Pity the Montreal Star. Two days after reporting the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as saying "PetroCan will stay", the Prime Minister said "PetroCan still goes". Who's on first? What's on second? The Canadian taxpayer-out at third! The new government had better stick to football.
One wonders why myopic party dogma should stand in the way of Canada maintaining its own national oil company, just as Britain and most other industrialized nations do. The multinational oil companies that would control our energy future in the absence of Petro-Canada have demonstrated that their supply objectives do not coincide with those of the Canadian people. Petro-Canada must answer to its owners. Its owners are the Canadian people.
The leaders of our new government have expressed a concern in the past over an alleged abrogation of the powers of Parliament during the last few years. This is certainly an

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Fits
impressive statement to make inasmuch as no democratically minded person would argue that the elected legislature should be anything else but the focus of initiative and review in government policy. Is the new government acting in accord with this lofty ideal? I think not. The reason given for the longest delay in Canadian history between election day and the summoning of Parliament was for the ministers to become expert in their respective portfolios. Judging from the responses that we have been hearing to opposition questions in the last few days, one is left to wonder why it was assumed that five months would be sufficient.
By the appointment of a freshly defeated and unproven, novice politician to a senior economic portfolio, the Prime Minister has made a blatant end run around Parliament and the democratic process as we know it.
Had Parliament the opportunity to debate it in advance, perhaps the government could have been dissuaded from its unfortunate policy on the Israeli embassy question. Under the guidance of prime minister Trudeau, Canada acquired a reputation of considerable stature in foreign affairs. This reputation has been seriously eroded in an ominously brief period of time, and all before a single member of Parliament was afforded the opportunity to ask who, what, where, when or why.
The revelation of budgetary substance by way of a press conference is an unacceptable affront to Parliament. The House of Commons is very jealous of its primacy in the knowledge of such matters. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), who is as quick with his wit as he is slow with his answers, continues to mock the intelligence of all members with his evasiveness. Perhaps he was named to that portfolio because of his dexterity at passing the buck. Only last week we witnessed confusion by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) over responsibility for the estimates after presenting them on behalf of His Excellency the Governor General. The lack of organization apparent within this government is alarming.
The formation of the several parliamentary committees is a positive step. Parliament should have accurate data when reviewing the estimates, and it should have a major voice in the determination of such major policy areas as foreign investment, nuclear energy, cultural policy and the several other important matters cited for examination. To broaden the activities of Parliament, however, is not necessarily synonymous with broadening its powers. I truly hope that in this session we begin to witness a convergence of the two.
The importance of instilling confidence in the Canadian economy was stressed in the Speech from the Throne. The behaviour of the Toronto Stock Exchange last week suggests that this objective is not within reach at the moment. If the government wishes to restore confidence in the economy, it must withdraw such misdirected and hackneyed schemes as the mortgage interest and tax credit plan. Though conceived with an honourable motive, the plan is inadequate, as many Canadians such as renters and full home-owners cannot participate. Given the impact on increases in the interest rate

permitted by the present government, all benefits of the plan have become extinct. Unfortunately, the costs of the plan will outlast the benefits by several years.
In other matters pertaining to the economy, it is heartening to see the effects of the last budget continuing to moderate the inflation rate and unemployment. 1 believe that governments should channel a great deal more resources toward youth and their interests than has been the case in the past in Canada.
In 1976, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development-we see it in the media as OECD-completed a study on educational policies in Canada. Our system was harshly criticized for lacking unity of purpose or any orientation toward the future in the face of overwhelming arguments in favour of some kind of central direction. The report made the following points in favour of a national authority to involve itself in education:
Education is a right of each citizen, due to each system irrespective of his place of residence... The standards maintained by schools, community colleges and universities are of national interest, because a large part of scientific-technical achievement, and hence, economic and social well-being may depend on them ... unity of the educational system is a national interest, in order to maintain and guard the freedom of choice (via mobility) of citizens... the educational philosophy of an educational system and the principles underlying its operation are matters of national interest, because cultural and national consciousness depend on it.
No political party in Canada has had the guts to infringe upon the provincial jurisdictions in education, but I believe the time has come to amend the constitution to allow for a federal ministry of education which would set national goals and national standards.
I applaud the initiatives of the government in assisting young Canadians in the work force. My own background is heavily oriented in education-equipping young people to cope with situations that they will encounter outside school. In this Thirty-first Parliament there are at least five dozen others who have been involved with education either through teaching or through school administration. As an educator I have witnessed first hand the value of, indeed the need for, a positive esprit de corps, be it a school spirit or a national will. Just as a winning team enhances the spirit of a school, a strong national pride enhances a country.
The Liberal government provided strong leadership based on winning ideas such as Petro-Canada and the plan of national health care. Both of these ideas are being undermined by the current excess of Tory governments in Canada. By shedding all of its powers to the provincial governments, this federal government is neglecting its responsibility to act on behalf of the national fact known as Canada.
My parents emigrated from Poland at the height of the depression. The fact that they settled in Saskatchewan as opposed to Manitoba or New Brunswick was only incidental to them-they considered their destination to be Canada. As a citizen of Canada by birth, I cannot help but be alarmed when I see the federal government jettisoning its responsibilities, left, right, and centre, to the provincial governments. These several provincial governments are answerable to and must act on behalf of the residents of their respective provinces. None of
October 15, 1979

them appear incapable of acting on their own behalf, but this federal government, this Prime Minister, under the guise of co-operation, is handing over lock, stock and barrel, the very elements that bind these provinces as one country.
The notion of regional interests is not alien to the concept of Canada; in fact, the presence of a federal government that bends like a willow in the wind to provincial demands as this government does, causes worry for my constituents and, 1 am afraid, for all Canadians.
It is Premier Lougheed's job to fight for Alberta's interest, Premier Lyon's to fight for Manitoba, that of Premier Davis for Ontario. I pray that the Prime Minister gives serious reflection as to what constituency he should be fighting for.
I would like to thank the residents of Parkdale-High Park for bestowing upon me the greatest honour 1, as the child of immigrant parents, could ever hope to achieve. To this role of member of parliament I bring with me experience as a farmer, small businessman, labourer, and educator.
1 cherish the opportunity to convey the interests of my constituents to the federal government-constituents such as Dr. Ven who advised me on the maximization of research moneys. Mr. Czubak advises Mr. Clark that if he must sell off PetroCan, to sell only 45 per cent to the private sector, and retain 55 per cent control in federal government hands. This is not my stand; this is the stand of one of my constituents and I feel it is my duty to share it with you. Mr. Primicius, who comes from the Philippines, recommends that the new government call a constitutional convention. I bring to this House Mr. Wotton's concern of using foreign designers for publicly funded Canadian projects. Mr. Field, Mr. Szymanski, and over one hundred other constituents are irate over the present government's immigration policy. Several petitioners wish me to draw to this Parliament's attention that Canadians do not want the legalization of marijuana use.
The constituents of Parkdale-High Park whose parents come from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and other eastern European countries want this government to challenge the Soviet Union's dual citizenship policy.
Another constituent, Mr. Cozzi, helped me appreciate the contribution made to Canada and the world by our senior veterans and the present personnel in the armed forces.
Miss Milne requests that the External Affairs Department disband Canada House or force it to improve its service to Canadian travellers.
Mr. Bosley, like many other residents of Parkdale-High Park, is furious over the misuse of our social welfare services. Many people are worried about the low morale in the immigration department caused by public statements made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey).
Mrs. Plesha, Mr. Hanzlik, Mr. Tiwari, Mr. Previlon, Mr. Palaniandi, Mrs. Paech, Mr. Singh, Mr. Halaby and Mrs. Baptista would like the ministries of immigration and external
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
affairs to get off their bureaucratic high horses and allow these people to reunite with their families while immediate families, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, and parents, are still alive, and not after they are dead.
Mr. Kolev wants to know why the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) refuses to meet with him to discuss the release of his ailing 69 year old father from a Bulgarian concentration camp.
Mr. Manat wants to know why he has to pay $3,000 for a patent on an energy saving engine which could save Canada millions of dollars in lowering fuel consumption.
In the past it was often assumed that elected officials were more knowledgeable than the constituents in many strategic areas. My brief experience as a member of Parliament has demonstrated to me that this is not the case now, if in fact it ever was. As the elected representative, I depend on the collective expertise of my constituents. It is my responsibility to convey their opinions, suggestions, needs and know-how into this House of Commons. Upon reflection, we must all realize that no one of us has a greater responsibility than this.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne in broad general terms is a speech designed to outline the government's proposals for the session. It is my view that the speech of a member speaking in the throne speech debate should outline that member's intention, his philosophy, and how he proposes to act during the parliamentary session.
I was a member of this House in the Twenty-ninth Parliament and spoke many times during that time. But in a sense this is my maiden speech because at no time in that Parliament did I really have an opportunity to talk about some of the matters that I would like to talk about in this address.
I bring to this House some basic principles which 1 think are important in the way that I will perceive my role as a member of Parliament and which I think are important in outlining to members here how they can understand the member from Mississauga South.
There is only one kind of Canadian, a very ordinary Canadian. That is my first principle. There is nothing special about being a black Canadian, a yellow Canadian, a red Canadian, or a white Canadian. There is only one kind of Canadian.
I am perhaps slightly colour blind. A lady came to my constituency office the other day and asked me if I knew she was a black Canadian. I thought she was chocolatey-brown, but I told her that I didn't care what she perceived her colour to be, I perceived she was a Canadian. I told her that that was all I was concerned about, and that she was entitled to the same rights and privileges in Canada as anyone else, no more, no less.
Over past years we have had a tendency to develop a description of Canadians by calling them Francophones, Anglophones, Irish Canadians, French Canadians, and Polish Canadians, and so on. By doing this we have got away from the spirit of the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker who

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
stood up and said that there was but one kind of Canadian, in Canada, an unhyphenated Canadian. My executive assistant in my constituency office was born in Hungary. She told me the other day that it was not until Mr. Diefenbaker said to her- and her name was Berkovits at the time-"you are a Canadian; you did not have to be born here and you don't have to have a WASP name, you are a Canadian," that it was not until that point that she felt she really belonged.
Throughout the election campaign a candidate opposed to me from a party on the other side of the House proposed that there were four kinds of Canadians, namely, French-Canadi-ans, English-Canadians, native-Canadians, and immigrant Canadians. That is not the kind of Canada I will speak for, nor should it be the kind of Canada that this government should speak for.
It should not matter when we, in government, appoint people to offices in the civil service or wherever to make our country work, whether the person is a Baptist, or a Moslem or a Jew, a woman, a Francophone or from an underprivileged minority. Surely we should treat all our citizens in the same fashion without attempting, by virtue of colour or whatever, to say that one is better than the other.
Since the election, some members in this House may have said things in certain letters with regard to a letter I wrote to the president of the National Indian Brotherhood. The president replied by saying "your white immigrant government this, and your white immigrant government that." I had the opportunity of sitting on a white immigrant airplane with him. Each of us were enjoying a white immigrant alcoholic beverage. 1 put my fist up against his and discovered that my colour was a little browner than his. Perhaps he has been under the colour of the neon lights too long.
Our attempts to try to balance race, religion and sex are in many cases an attempt at reverse discrimination so we have the nominal woman, the nominal new Canadian, or the nominal WASP on a board. That is reverse discrimination, and my actions will be to oppose that type of thing. In the very same way I will be opposing anything that insists that because you were born as a UEL and can trace your heritage to indicate that, somewhere along that line you may have some privilege in Canada. That is the kind of thing members of this House must convey to all of Canada.
Last evening I was at the home of the Consul General for Poland. I was at a reception in connection with a mutual exchange between a Polish city, and I am having a hard time pronouncing it, Wroclaw, and North York. A gentleman there told me he had been in Canada seven years, that he was a Polish and Canadian. I said, "No you are not. If you are a Canadian you are a Canadian and Polish is your culture, and that culture is part of Canada. That is the kind of thing we must preserve." I told him that just because he had a Polish culture that did not make him Polish because he had decided to be a Canadian. Culture, whether it is Polish, Ukrainian, or Italian, preserved in its panoramic sense, makes Canada the

kind of place in which we want to live. Differences of culture and race cannot be allowed to be the basis for differences between our people. They must be the uniting force for our people because we have one Canada, one people.
My second principle is that we in Canada are over governed and the least government we can have is probably the best. In that sense I am in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) when he says we have been expecting too much. Canadians have been expecting far too much from government. No organization of government can do anything other than try to regulate and control in human terms the activities of one person to another.
Too often we ask government to do the impossible. We ask it to regulate, control, and redistribute. To a large extent the efforts of government have not proved very satisfactory. In the 25 or 30 years since the last war we have been trying to eliminate poverty in this country. Massive redistributions of money have not done very much to equalize between wealth and poverty. Despite all our efforts, despite government in action, not very much has been done to alleviate some of the questions the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has brought to this House on many occasions concerning veterans and people of native origin on the reserves I sometimes call Bantustans. A great deal of the effort by government has been nothing but a waste of money and a waste of administration, without any real effort at bringing forth a better standard of living for the disadvantaged in our society.
The late John Kennedy said it is not what you can get from your country but what you can do for your country. What we have to inculcate is a sense of individualism in Canada, a sense that people individually can do things for themselves and that big brother government cannot accomplish, indeed it has proven unable to accomplish, those social aims and objectives that had been placed before it. It is essential as we go into this Thirty-first Parliament that the direction of bigger and bigger government being asked to accomplish more and more be turned back.
I am reminded of a speech made in this House by the former member for Crowfoot. He mentioned Hardin's law. 1 do not know where Hardin or the law came from. It went something like this. If you have a problem and you pass a law to solve it, often what you do is create three more problems which require three more laws that require and require and require, and your problems are never solved.
This House has directed the problem of interest rates to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. All of us are upset about the astronomical rates of interest charged by our banking system. We see young people being forced to pay 13'A per cent on mortgages, and small businesses paying 15 or 15'/2 per cent interest just to stay alive. We see the destruction that high cost money will cause to employment opportunities. We have a right to be concerned.
What do we do about high cost interest? Do we pass a law like foreign exchange control? Do we make more wage and price controls mandatory? What do we do to break this
October 15, 1979

country away from the North American high interest costs imposed on us by the banking system in New York and elsewhere? When our committee meets on this matter it is essential that we bear in mind that we cannot have it just the way we want it, that sometimes passing a law only creates the problem of more and more laws and more and more control over the life of the individual.
I have looked at government, particularly since I have come back and have had much more experience in the private field, in manufacturing, construction and so on. I look at where we spend the taxpayers' money.
The other day 1 was in a manpower office, a glorious place with three or four floors of booths and people in Mississauga trying to work within the manpower requirements of the present legislation. I asked how many of the unemployed they would place. I was told there are probably 5,000 jobs in Mississauga right now, that they would probably fill 1,000, and the rest would be filled by people never even bothering with their service.
1 looked at the cost of that operation. I began to wonder if we did not have the operation at all whether more people would find jobs than presently find jobs with the assistance of that operation. It is important that members of Parliament look critically at the activities of ministries. Do we really need the service we are paying for? Is the service supplied by a government really worth the effort?
The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid) mentioned tourism. I understand in that committee a senior bureaucrat was asked what do you really do, do you really bring more tourists to Canada, can you show what you have accomplished? The witness was a bit taken aback. He said, "Well, you know, we co-ordinate things between the provinces, you know, and that sort of thing". We have to really examine the functions of government, some of the things we are attempting to do for Canadians, to see whether they need to be done.
I could give other instances. I talked with someone in the National Farm Marketing Products Council. Their budget started off at $300,000. This year it will be $1 million. They co-ordinate marketing boards in all the provinces. 1 asked one of the employees whether they really accomplished anything. She said you could probably get rid of the board as there is enough expertise in the ministry to handle all the marketing problems, but the board was created by statute. She said their big job was dealing with the ministry. Therefore we have a ministry dealing with a ministry dealing with a ministry all over the province, and all over the country. What does that man who is raking asphalt for a construction company and paying 30 per cent or 40 per cent of his dollars in income tax think about an agency or a board which is accomplishing nothing for him? That is part of the concern I bring to this House and I shall act as a member to seriously cross-examine our government activity.
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
The next thing is this: I shall be bringing to this House a very high respect for private ownership. Look at farms throughout the world and then consider the kind of production we get from prairie farms and from our farms in Ontario where we raise some of the finest Holstein cattle in the world. This is done by people privately working on their own property, building on their own activity and initiative. They own the property. We look at the people who are retiring. We look at the ones who own their homes when they retire and we look at their ability to look after themselves and not come to the state for a handout or extras. We look at the people who never own property and what their condition is at the time of retirement and we must, over the years, acknowledge ownership of property, the wide distribution of ownership in Canada, to be very important to the social structure and fabric of the nation. That is why I am proud of our government for its decision to make interest charges on home mortgages recoverable from tax, recognizing that home ownership is a method by which individuals can acquire a personal stake in the ownership of Canada.
A proposal was tabled today with respect to Petro-Canada, a proposal to distribute broadly individual shares in that corporation so that individual Canadians can own a bit more of Canada. What we need are laws which will enable corporations in this country to distribute their stock to their employees. One of the advantages of the privatization of Crown corporations is that it will enable the distribution of shares in those corporations to the employees of those corporations to give them a chance of feeling they really belong, that they really have a place in Canada. When people feel they belong, when they feel they own the soil they farm or the backyard where their home is, when they own an interest in the firm for which they work, they have a sense of security, a sense of belonging. That is the purpose of this government, the aim I shall be working for this session.
Next is the question of individual liberty. All too often big government has meant erosion of the liberty of the individual. So we have seen efforts to reverse the burden of proof under the Income Tax Act to allow people to come in and seize a company's books and records without even a court order, or garnishee a person's wages or property because some official says money is due to government. There have been situations where people have been allowed to place taps on telephones, spy, and find out about an individual, or force an individual to use his social insurance number just to get a ticket on a Sun Tour charter. Respect for the individual and the individual's right to privacy is essential in Canada, so I shall be working on that kind of issue.
Last, when speaking as a member of Parliament I deem it my job to represent my constituents. Sometimes in representing my constituents and speaking on their behalf I may say things we are not supposed to say as members of Parliament. The other day the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand) suggested I should be kicked out of the caucus of my

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Cousineau
political party because 1 said some things of which they did not approve. Perhaps some of the people in my own party did not approve of what I said either. Surely, though, it is essential that I, along with other members, should be entitled to state opinions for and on behalf of constituents, which might not be popular with others.
Sir, it is not the job of a member of Parliament just to stand up and bow to you at the appropriate time on an appropriate vote. It is the job of a member of Parliament to seek out the opinions of his constituents and to represent those opinions on the floor of this chamber, and in carrying out my duties here it will be my policy to do that. It will be my duty to find out what my constituents think and desire and to advise you, Mr Speaker, and other hon. members, as to the opinions of the people of Mississauga South. Sometimes their opinions will not agree with my own at which time I shall be paying more attention to their opinions than to my own because, after all, I am their representative

they cannot all come here and speak for themselves; they must depend on me to say for them what is in their minds. It is my job then, to distil and generally organize what is in their minds for them and bring their opinions and needs to the attention of this chamber.
The job of a member of Parliament is a difficult one, sir, but with your help and the help of the other members 1 shall endeavour to do my best to represent my constituency.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. members for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), on their speeches last week as movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Using the same opportunity, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, as well as your colleague, the Deputy Speaker. Finally, I extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Binks) for the speech he gave this morning.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in my first speech in this House, to pay homage to my predecessor who sat in this chamber for 16 years. Mr. Gaston Clermont, who sat as member for the ridings of Gatineau and Labelle, built himself a reputation as a parliamentary fighter, an untiring worker, a totally honest man with a true sense of fair play both in the House and in committees. In 1973, he was nicknamed the "beaver of politics". He was respected by all and I wish him well in his new responsibilities.
Prior to being elected to this House, Mr. Speaker, 1 had often said that I wished to replace him and occupy his position with the same dignity and strength, for the best interests of my riding, of my province and of my country.
I would also like to pay tribute to the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker whose memory will remain alive in the hearts of all politicians regardless of their party. It was an honour for me to be able to greet him the day 1 took the oath, and after speaking with him for a few minutes he said to me,

"Good luck, and I can say that with much sincerity." I had much respect for the old fellow, and I was looking forward to being here in this House at the same time as he to hear him speak and to see him point that famous finger of his accusingly at the colleague who had merited his intervention.
For those who might not know where Gatineau is, my riding is right across the river.
[ Translation]
I hope to prove to the people of Gatineau, whom I represent and whose concerns are mine, who gave me an overriding majority on May 22, and who trusted me, that they were right to do so.

I am one of the privileged members of this House because I can reach my home and family in a matter of minutes, unlike most hon. members who will have to settle for a weekend or visit twice a month to see their families and loved ones.
Even though the majority of the population of my riding is concentrated in the town of Gatineau, of the same name, my riding has a large rural area and is a paradise for fish and game. If any hon. members in this House travel that way, 1 hope they will not hesitate to try their luck in moments of leisure, if they are not too busy and have time.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that my constituency is near Ottawa, I should like perhaps to talk geography, for the benefit of the new hon. members. It can be identified easily as we have the Gatineau River to the west, the Ottawa River to the south, the town of Thurso to the east, the nice little village of St. Sixte to the northeast which is always very hospitable. To the north is the municipality of Notre-Dame-du-Laus and it, together with the municipalities of Val-des-Bois, Bowman and Notre-Dame-de-la Salette, is a fisherman's and a hunter's paradise. To the northwest is the municipality of Val-des-Monts, which is another fisherman's paradise. By the way, the Ottawa mayor, Mrs. Dewar, honours me with her presence in my constituency-not every weekend as she is too busy to do so-in the Saint-Pierre de Wakefield and Poltimore section where she has a cottage in that part of my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, the main employers in my constituency are the federal government and the pulp and paper and newsprint industries. I am pleased to stress to the House, for those who are not aware of this, that you can find there the largest newsprint machine in the world, and I invite hon. members to go and see it because it is a worth-while experience.
In spite of those two big employers, there is unfortunately too much unemployment. It would be important to encourage tourism more and more in the Lievre Valley so that it could benefit from Highway 50, half of which is subsidized and paid by federal funds, if the provincial government can at last
October 15, 1979

complete its construction and administer it, of course. Unfortunately the home building industry in the cities of Gatineau, Buckingham, Masson and Thurso is idle. Our tradesmen suffer awfully from that situation. There are but few small and medium enterprises in our region. The industrial park of Gatineau is almost empty. The city council of Gatineau and the Societe d'amenagement de I'Outaouais urged the former government many times to consider that region as a designated area, thinking it was the only way to attract industries to the region. Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) will take a stand on this matter as soon as possible so that we know whether or not our region will be designated and so that the people concerned within the Societe d'amenagement de 1'Outaouais and the city council of Gatineau know where they are going.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, he allegedly stated to a local newspaper that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. de Cotret) has recently met with Mr. Landry, a minister in the Quebec cabinet, and that following that meeting it is possible that the Quebec side of the Ottawa region will be considered as a designated area. Could 1 ask the ministers who are the colleagues of the hon. senator-I do not know who is responsible for delivering messages to him, because it is not the first nor the last time-to repeat my comments to the senator so that in the first place he would confirm that such a meeting has taken place and such a discussion on the designated area has been held? Second, does the senator intend to discuss with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion the advisability of considering that region as a designated area?
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Conservative candidates pointed out unemployment and inflation in the country, especially in the Outaouais region in Quebec. The Liberal candidates recognized the problem and did not conceal the facts. However, the Conservative candidates stated and promised that they would solve the unemployment problem. Well, Mr. Speaker, the last government set up the Canada Works Program to help eradicate unemployment and it was highly successful and appreciated by the constituents and the communities.
In my constituency for the year 1978-79 Mr. Clermont obtained subsidies of $1,240,000 but for the year 1979-80 that amount was reduced to $501,000, a 50 per cent cut, Mr. Speaker. It is a strange way of providing assistance to the unemployed because in 1979 in my constituency the number of unemployed was unfortunately almost the same as in 1978. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock and resume my speech at eight o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may resume his speech at eight o'clock. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The Address-Mr. Cousineau


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, may I signal the presence of ministers on the other side of the floor? This afternoon they were conspicuous by their absence. Knowing that they are very busy, I can understand that.
Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted this afternoon at six, I was speaking about my riding's problems which are not different from those of the rest of the country. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has decided to add some more to them by promising massive personnel reductions in the public service that will affect 60,000 employees.

After the election there was a meeting with the President of the Treasury Board, to which reference was made by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), on Friday, October 12. At that meeting it was clearly stated that a task force would be created to study the impact of the cutbacks in the civil service. A month passed, two months, now nearly three months, but I still have not heard anything. I even tried to obtain a copy of the minutes of that meeting which were promised. My secretary tried on several occasions, but unfortunately was given the same answer and no copy of the minutes was sent to my office. How is it that no study was made before the decision to cut 60,000 jobs was taken? Supposedly this expert minister did not think there might be such an impact.

To these two questions, Mr. Speaker we did not get an answer. I have not yet received one and the reason is very simple. The minister himself does not know either. Since May 22 the Progressive Conservative government has been much more concerned with setting records. Never in our history has a period of five months elapsed without the Houses being recalled, when they had all the answers during the election campaign. Never have we heard so many contradictory statements by ministers of the Crown. Never in my political career have I heard a minister tell the Canadian people that an election promise does not have to be kept if later on one discovers that it is nonsensical, unrealistic or impossible. Never in the history of this country has a federal government been seen in such a short period of time to lose its authority, its powers as well as its perception of the country as a whole.
Since May 22, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed irresponsible decisions and statements as in the case of Petro-Canada, the lotteries, the sale of certain Crown corporations, the deduction of mortgage interests, and as if it were not enough, the ministers are now contradicting each other regarding our aid policy of the Third World.
No wonder a young member of this House, and I am not speaking only for myself Mr. Speaker, who sees all this day

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Cousineau
after day, week after week, is a little bewildered if he expected specific and well defined decisions and policies on the part of the government.

Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no reference to national unity in the Speech from the Throne, and no comments whatsoever made of what would happen in case the referendum procedures of the PQ government were unfair to the people of Quebec. There is a situation in which the government will have to think about the unity of this country, and this should not be postponed. The government of Quebec is now thinking of borrowing money from Alberta, money necessary for the expropriation of the Asbestos Corporation.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


René Cousineau: Instead of saying "hear, hear", the hon. member should just listen. The premier of Alberta has declared that Alberta will not dictate to other provincial governments what the loans should be used for. These words worry me, and I appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and to all my colleagues from Alberta to express their concern about this matter, and to attempt to ensure that the government of Alberta make the loan for a specific purpose and not for the discussion of the PQ government to facilitate the vile intention to dismantle and break up this country.

It seems that the Prime Minister will not take part in the referendum campaign and that the Quebec referendum should not be the government's only concern during the year. According to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, the economy and energy matters are equally pressing. 1 fully agree with the Prime Minister that those matters are equally pressing, but they should not be dissociated; unity and economic matters must be faced together, not separately. If this country's unity were to be broken, there would still be energy; that is not lost, but in what state would the Canadian economy be?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has the tools at hand, but for how long I do not know; the fact, however, is that the House will have to know one day, not in 1981, what he intends to do to help us, from Quebec, fight against that separatist ideology.
Mr. Speaker, there are in my riding a good many residences for senior citizens built through assistance provided by the former government, but, unfortunately, the number of people on the waiting list who want to reside there is increasing weekly. There is mention of pensions in the throne speech, but the question of old age housing has been omitted. The throne speech mentions the creation of committees to study the needs of the handicapped and the invalid. I congratulate the government for that initiative, but there is no question of a committee to study the needs of senior citizens.
There was a lot of talk about the mortgage interest deduction plan recently. Several of my Liberal colleagues made
(Mr. Cousineau.]
remarks in that respect which I strongly support. The deduction, I should say this discriminatory deduction, of mortgage interest will cause senior citizens a serious prejudice because most of them do not have a mortgage on their house.
For nearly five months, Mr. Speaker, there has been very negative talk about the National Capital Commission and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Some ministers are talking these days of abolishing them. At other times, they talk of reducing their roles and, finally, they talk of reducing their staffs. I dare believe, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of the decision made by the government in this matter, the presence of the federal government will continue to be felt on the Quebec side of the Ottawa area.
Over $1 billion was spent by the federal government in the past few years on the Quebec side of the Ottawa area, and this had very favorable and positive effects on my riding. It is my firm intention in this House to keep on working to maintain the presence of the federal government on the Quebec side of the Ottawa area, whatever government is in power in Quebec. Living in a healthy democracy where the majority rules, the majority decides. I have no doubt that this is what my people told me on May 22 and what the people of Hull also told my colleague. The May 22 vote was an order to serve and to make sure the presence of the federal government continues to be felt on the Quebec side of the Ottawa area.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by inviting the right hon. Prime Minister to take a look at my riding every morning from his residence at 24 Sussex. He will see the fine steeple of the St. Francois de Sales Church in Pointe-Gatineau, the fine CIP plant as well as the beautiful mountains which form part of the Laurentians. I must ask him to give special attention to a place that has unfortunately, owing to the force of circumstances, become the city dump for the city of Gatineau for a period of four to five years. The government, through the National Capital Commission, should give support to any organization trying to find a use for the place that we call the Kettle Bay and Island problem.
During this Thirty-first parliament, I plan to bring this up in the House, before the population, and in the various committees of which I shall be a member, as often as possible. Various studies have been made and many opinions have been given. I think that the time has come for action. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House may think that the problem of Kettle Bay and Kettle Island is a municipal or provincial problem, but for my part, I insist on saying in the House that it is a national problem. This part of my constituency is within the area designated as the national capital region and if Canadians want to be proud of their capital and its region, whether they are English-speaking or French-speaking.
October 15, 1979

It does not make a difference to what ethnic group he belongs. All Canadians should be proud of the entire capital region, and not proud only of one side of the Ottawa River where there is a beautiful and tremendous tourist attraction which is Rockcliffe Park and Sussex Drive, while on the other side of the river, as I said in French, there is such a contrast, with such disparity between the two sides of the river, and where a municipal refuse dump has been used in such under out of the ordinary circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, there is no short-term solution, but we must come to an agreement and make a collective effort to show to our children and their children that men and women came to Ottawa from throughout Canada to serve their constituencies and their country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all those people to work even harder with one common thought, that of love for their country, a country represented by a capital and a national capital region of which all Canadians can be proud. Thus, they can show true patriotic feeling.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go over the time allotted to me. I thank you for having allowed me to say these few words and I hope that there will not be too many problems cropping up during the Thirty-first parliament and that you will continue to preside over the debates of the House with the impartiality that we all recognize and admire.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the throne speech debate, as I have done on a number of occasions over the years, but this is the first time I have done so from the government's side. I should like very much to congratulate the mover and the seconder. They have much to offer, as do all new members of this House. I am sure the new members will appreciate the generosity and good will of individual members regardless of their parties. Although parties are necessary in this democratic process, still much can be accomplished on an individual basis, and a lasting understanding of all regions of the country can be shared.
Like you, Mr. Speaker, I am one of the class of '68, as is one of the hon. members from Hamilton who is present, and 1 should like to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker. Over the years you have been, in my opinion, a reasonable and impartial Speaker, and you have expedited the business of this House. I think it can safely be said that you have carried out your office with dignity and justice. I wish you the best during this minority Parliament.
The election of May was significant in that it ended, for the moment anyway, an apparent domination by central Canada of the periphery, and now western Canada will have a chance to exert some effort in the executive, instead of indirectly, in attempting to change legislation designed specifically for the central region. In fact, with the enlargement of the House,
The Address-Mr. G. Ritchie
western Canada has finally come of age and will be enabled to exert on its central neighbours a much greater influence, regardless of which party is in power.
The redistribution carried out in the last Parliament based on the 1971 census, with the enlargement of the House, has largely brought this about. Had the redistribution based on the 1971 census been carried out with no enlargement of the House, with the proposed redistribution of that time, the old order would have held so that for another decade western Canadian representation would have been reduced in relation to other regions.
As one who served on that redistribution committee at the time I should like to pay tribute to one who has since departed but who contributed so much to our political life, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. It was his consistent questioning regarding representation in Saskatchewan that moved the prime minister of that day, now the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), to cause a re-examination of the electoral process and redistribution. I believe the result enhanced the political influence of western Canada markedly, and as well to some extent improved the influence of the eastern provinces and Newfoundland, so that our various regions have now become more important in actual political influence on the executive decisions of this government.
It has been obvious that for over 100 years Canada has been a compromise of the two large provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and when their economic influence was threatened they tended to influence the federal government to take positions that, of course, benefited them but were often inimical to western and eastern regions of Canada. I am hopeful that this Parliament will for a time give a better balance to all regions in the country.
There are many things to speak on in this throne speech debate, but I would like to confine any remarks largely to an area which affects my own constituency as well as the prairie region of Canada. That is the grain industry.
For some time we have had a discussion regarding food policy for Canada, but it is a fact that policies and suggestions have been piecemeal. It is also a fact that we import a great deal of our food from the southern United States and the tropics. This has been offset by the export of cereal grains and oilseeds. With our high standard of living and our high consumption, there are fewer and fewer agricultural products that we can export to other parts of the world efficiently enough to sell to countries which have a lower economic level than our own. At one time we were a significant exporter of beef, pork and apples, but we seem to have lost that position and have not been able to meet the competition from other exporting nations around the world.
The problem of food exports was the subject of a pamphlet issued by the Toronto-Dominion Bank from their department of economic research, and in it they detail something which is known to most farmers. It was suggested that exportable wheat could rise by 50 per cent by 1990. Since wheat exports

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. G. Ritchie
pay for some 50 per cent of all food that we import, this is highly desirable because, as our population grows, so will our demands for those imported foods we ourselves do not produce. In the pamphlet they point out the importance of the government, the Wheat Board, the railways and the terminals, all of which are necessary for Canada to be a reliable world supplier of grains.
In 1978 Canada's over-all food and agriculture trade surplus was $1.9 billion, but if imports of food and agricultural products continue to grow at the rate they have in the past 12 years, then a trade deficit in this area would appear within five years. This would result in grain and oilseed exports reaching $6 billion by 1990. Yet, for those who give a critical analysis of the industry of grain growing, there are reservations as to whether or not the projection of the increase in grain and oilseed production will occur.
Once the grain is grown the product follows a long and tenuous pathway to the ocean terminals, passing through many hands. It is therefore very susceptible to interruptions by the many different unions and groups who are vital to the movement of this grain. It has been suggested that there are some 30 different unions, any of which could interrupt the flow to the terminals. The grain transportation system has been relatively free of strikes in so far as any single union is concerned, but there have been frequent interruptions. I do not feel that these interruptions have been unduly restrictive, but they have certainly had their effect, on occasion.
There are many problems within the industry which are perhaps not as well understood as they might be. From the producers' point of view there has been a steady drop in the number of grain farmers producing grain and oilseed. This slow attrition will likely continue, causing the production to fall to fewer farming units. A new influence in this circumstance might be the rising cost of energy which is now being felt throughout the world. It is significant that for many decades there has been a stable relationship between the price of oil and the price of wheat.
The American balance of payments problem can be directly related to the fact that the grain exports of that country have not kept pace with the world price of oil. Before 1973 a bushel of wheat paid for a barrel of oil. I make this comparison based on the imperial system and not the metric system, which we are slowly adopting and which is such a bad system for agriculture. At the present time it takes approximately three to four bushels of wheat to pay for one barrel of oil.
Historically the relationship of the export price of wheat to oil has existed for many decades. Until the economy of the world corrects itself and brings the prices closer together, Canada and the United States are in for a bad balance of payments. When the economic forces do correct it, it is obvious that the world price of food will rise dramatically and pose new problems for those countries that import food. At the moment the world price of grain and oilseeds can be described as being at rock bottom.
The price received by Canadian farmers has reflected the low price of grains and oilseeds and, although energy costs

have been kept artificially below world prices, the continued low price of wheat and cereal grains has been a definite deterrent to production. The initial price paid by the Wheat Board has not changed for three or four years, except for a slight increase in initial prices announced by the minister in charge of the wheat board. Indeed, the initial price this year was slightly below the price of one year ago. Unless world prices rise, producers will not reach that goal of a 50 per cent increase in grain exports in this coming decade.
As well, there are the increased costs of farm machinery, transportation, fertilizers and fuel, which will have to be offset by a general increase in real return to the farmers before they can reach this increase of 50 per cent. Agriculture has become a very big energy consumer but, I believe, a very efficient user of energy.
The necessity to increase production brings into sharp focus the question of whether the wheat board and the grain commission are pursuing the best policies with regard to increasing the export potential of our grain. We have, up to the present time, attempted to give preference to the export of classes one and two grade wheat, hard spring and high protein wheat. This is the result of a deliberate effort on the part of the wheat board over the past two years in order to get the most dollars for our farmers. Unfortunately it has left in limbo a number of grain producers, particularly in the northern parts of the prairies and my own region, the parkland region.
The introduction of this new grading system has tended to force the parkland grown wheat into the number three grades and lower. The Wheat Board has not been able to move this number three wheat and equivalent quantities of barley. Indeed, many producers of number three wheat and barley have merely sold the minimum quotas, and there is certainly no way in which a viable grain operation can be carried on with the sale of quantities such as that.
Indeed, barley grown in 1977 which is now moving into the system will not have its final payment made until 1981, almost four years after the growing of the grain. Small wonder then, that having to wait four years for payment of the grain to the producer, with our high inflation rate, does not make for a prosperous grain producing industry. If we are to have a large increase in volume of wheat exports, consideration will have to be given to the growing of lower protein wheats and whether, this is in our best interests or not. 1 do not believe that the grain growing area where the high protein wheats can be grown is large enough to bring the needed increases, at least without sacrificing other crops, and then there is always the problem of tillage in a low rainfall area.
The Wheat Board and the grain commission will have to tackle this problem and decide whether to continue with the high quality Marquis type wheat or do as the Americans have, who increased their exports by some 70 per cent in the last six years by producing a low protein wheat. Apparently many countries buy this for milling.
October 15, 1979

Much has been said about grain rates and transportation of grain. Protected by statutory rates, the grain has moved to ocean ports at modest charges compared to the equivalent American rates. Although the railways have complained bitterly about their losses on this grain movement, it seems that at least until 1973 returns to the railways were reasonable. They were reasonable because although the railways' wage structure was rising, their efficiency was increasing. Since 1973 the railways have claimed a marked deterioration in their position, as the Snavely report indicates. To increase the statutory rates this time, while meeting the railways objectives, would impose on the producer a price differential that would be too great for him to support. As well, there is real evidence that higher rates on grain necessarily has the railways moving it. For instance, in North Dakota, railway rates of 56 cents per bushel have not produced an entirely satisfactory movement of grain nor have they kept the railways in the position of keeping up their lines to modern standard. It seems significant that trucking costs as quoted for U.S. grain, are close to what the rail costs are, and it does seem to me that trucking will enter into grain transportation more in the future. While everyone would concede that a properly optimum loaded grain train, such as a unit train, with the proper locomotive power, is a very efficient way of moving grain as opposed to truck transportation, still, in small amounts and in shorter distances, trucks would seem to have their place. They lend themselves to versatility, to individual ownership, and give a great deal more flexibility.
i believe that this individual ownership would do much to enhance our transportation system. I think we should look at the fact that the railways are also in the trucking business although, generally speaking, 1 do not believe it is good to have such large monopolies as the railways also being able to control their trucks. It seems to me that we could improve facilities for unloading and transporting grain by truck, particularly for those grains that are not under quota or where quotas are of lesser importance in relationship to volume. We have high quality grains with high unit potential being trucked out of Manitoba as far south as Minneapolis thus reducing the strain on our existing transportation system.
1 would like to reiterate my support for Churchill as the export port for the northeastern prairies. While in the short run an immediate reduction in the movement of grain out of Churchill might give some more slight movement in the south, it would discriminate against the northern areas of the eastern prairies. But these areas are already the farthest from Thunder Bay or Vancouver and so are already disadvantaged. It is widely said, and it has not been refuted, that at the present price, wheat brings some 40 cents a bushel more and barley 25 cents more when shipped out of Churchill, as opposed to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Under the pooling system, of course, all producers share in this benefit, but the producer whose grain goes via Churchill has to wait almost a year to deliver his grain even at the earliest. This, of course, is because the shipping season is over before the grain harvest is ready to be sent to Churchill.
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
The Wheat Board should make some effort, I think, to see if they could not reward producers who must wait this long time for delivery of their grains for Churchill shipment, and must hold back some grain for this purpose. It seems to me that they should be rewarded in some manner, and I would bring this to the attention of the minister in charge of the wheat board.
The value of Churchill has always been that it acted as a brake for excessive demands of interests in the lake system and St. Lawrence Seaway. We have experienced the four-month long strike of grain loaders in Montreal who, incidentally, are likely to make more income than the grain producers themselves. For all the people who handle the grain the wage structure is based on the prevailing rates of our internal economy. But the producer of grain does not get an automatic index in the world market. He has to take what the markets of the world pay him. His final payment for his product is the world price less what is involved in the handling and transportation of the grain. At the moment, world prices are such that the producer is finding his returns squeezed by the cost of moving grain from his farm to the world market.
I close with the thought that the typical permit holder with something like 600 acres, who is a good producer and gets a good crop, will be lucky to gross $35,000 to $40,000 from the sale of his crops. Many of the people handling this product from the time it leaves the farm until it gets on the boat for overseas, will make almost as much. We have to ask ourselves how we can expect production of grains to increase in the next decade, and what our future pattern will be.
Our domestic wages are high, but we must increase the amount of grain available to export in the 1980s if we are to keep the balance of payments in food at their present level. Indeed, I believe it is doubtful if we can do that by the end of the next decade. The grain industry is probably facing as severe problems as any food industry in the world. It means that the historic relationship between oil and wheat must be restored if grain farmers are to become prosperous and make their contribution to the economy of Canada as they have done in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the twelfth time in this chamber to take part in a throne speech debate. I wish to thank the good people of Bellechasse for their ever renewed support which enables me to sit in this House for a fourth term. I wish to welcome the entire population of the provincial riding of l'lslet who for the first time, due to the redistribution of the electoral map, took part in the election of May 22 last as electors of Bellechasse. In effect, those people became full-fledged citizens of the electoral riding of Bellechasse. I thank them as well as my organizers who worked hard to help me cross the "Red Sea".
Mr. Speaker, let me assure every citizen from this new part of my riding that they can count on my fullest dedication to

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
defend their personal interests as well as the interests of the South Shore which has never been recognized in the past, and I ask the new government to take good notice of the fact that this region called the South Shore does exist, is located in the province of Quebec, and the riding of Bellechasse forms a part of it. I wish there would be more justice in the distribution of funds from taxes paid by Canadian taxpayers. Of course I regret that the parishes of Beaumont, St. Charles and St. Anselme, which have always supported me, have been cut off from my riding.
I thank all those people for their great co-operation. If we consider the great honour of being elected, of being one of those 282 members who form this House, and the fact that the population of Canada is now near 24 million, it is plainly obvious that from that honour flow responsibilities as well as duties that we must fulfil objectively and in the interest of our country, if we are going to prove without failure that our democratic system really means something. Indeed a democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Being convinced of those basic truths, I tried hard to live the parliamentary life I like very much.
Following the example of other members, I would like to congratulate His Excellency the Governor General who has presided with humility and dignity over the opening of the first session of the Thirty-first parliament. I would like also, through you, Mr. Speaker, to send His Excellency and his charming wife my best wishes for good health and success in their mission that is to favour harmony in all the country.
At the election of May 22, no political party succeeded in having enough members elected to form a majority government. Therefore, all parties in this House are minority groups and for the first time in the history of the Canadian parliament, a member from the official opposition has been unanimously chosen Speaker of this House. The coming into this parliament of a third and even a fourth group is not new. Indeed, when we read history, we see that in 1921 there was a minority group. If I had time I would relate the history of that group. Maybe some day we shall have the opportunity and the obligation to go over past decisions which would help us reflect seriously on the problem that has been facing this House recently, as well as on civil liberties enunciated in the Bill of Rights so that those rights and liberties may continue to form the basis of our democratic system.
I understand that it is not an easy task to be Speaker of the House. After all, this role is assigned to a human being who can, obviously, make mistakes. Errare humanum est, it is true and will always be. To err is human. I wish to emphasize that in his acceptance speech he reminded us that according to the custom an hon. member proposed as Speaker accepts that obligation only under protest. This is why Mr. Speaker, as he was led by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), showed some reluctance and we saw the left foot of the former Prime Minister
now Leader of the Opposition get close to his rear end-this is what we call to give a kick in the pants. There are other words for it, but it is always at the same place!
Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote the remarks of Mr. Speaker:
I say that so that my reluctance in coming to the Chair will be understood, and I have no illusions that on many days during the course of this Parliament that would be a fate which would seem quite acceptable as far as most members of the House of Commons are concerned; and in fact, on some days there will be some who will be glad to take a hand at the axe.
The image with which he recalled the tradition of the use of the axe makes me shiver when I think that it might be pointed towards one or two members of the House. I want to extend my congratulations to Mr. Speaker on his appointment and I want to assure him of my collaboration; saying that I mean working together in the spirit of parliamentary tradition and with respect for our democratic system. On this matter, I think we should all study the history of our parliament, the history of traditions in the life of British parliamentarian to help us carry out our duties in a better way under possibly difficult circumstances.
Also I would like to extend a cordial welcome to the member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) who sits in this House for the first time as a member and as leader of a national political party, namely, the Social Credit Party of Canada, whose existence has been entrenched for many years in the Canada Elections Act. The member for Beauce has been a member of the Quebec National Assembly for many years where he demonstrated exceptional abilities as a parliamentarian. He devoted himself to the interests of all people, and more specifically of those who could not speak up for their rights and claims. Now that through the will of his electors he works at the national level, I have no doubt that he will discharge his duties with dignity and firmness, and that my colleagues in the House will recognize not only that this democratic system of ours accepts diversity as well as equality of rights and privileges within our Parliament, and that they are also willing to live up to them in practice because, whether we like it or not, we will have to get used to parliamentary life in which several political groups live side by side, as is the case in several European countries.
Mr. Speaker, our democratic parliamentary system demands that the political group with the greatest number of elected members is called upon to form the government, and therefore to constitute the executive whose duty it is to implement the laws passed by Parliament. I congratulate the Prime Minister on having acceded to that office. 1 wish him good health and all the energy he will need to fulfil those duties efficiently for the greater good of Canada. I also wish fortitude to all the hon. members who have been called upon to become members of the cabinet, and wish them every success in their mission, especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) who always had a supply of excellent formulas when he sat in the opposition.

October 15, 1979

Amongst other things, I remember that when the Bank of Canada increased its rates, the present Minister of finance had rather embarrassing questions to put to his predecessor. Today, the roles are reversed: the former minister of finance now puts questions to the present minister about similar situations. The situation has really not changed that much. 1 do hope the new government will be able to tackle those problems and give this country the best possible administration. This being a minority government, I have no intention of causing it any useless trouble. On the contrary, I am quite aware of my responsibilities and am willing to co-operate in giving our country the best possible administration.
There were times when I was sitting on the other side of the House and supported government measure, and some of my Progressive Conservative friends would say that "the Social Crediters are voting red". On the other hand, whenever we supported a motion introduced by our NDP friends, some people would shout, "Same old gang! The Social Crediters have turned socialists or vice versa!" These are some of the inconsequential remarks hon. members will make; in any event, however, when the hour of decision comes, 1 am sure there will be no need to call upon the conscience of any of them: they will assume their responsibilities.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government has a difficult mission to carry out, and I feel more than ever that no contemporary problem of today will be solved through traditional means. We shall have to turn aside from the beaten track. We shall have to innovate. We shall have to cease looking tailside at so-called "new" solutions which proved inadequate when first considered headside. No matter the effort we shall put into it, a pike will remain a pike and a pickerel a pickerel, no matter how you show it to the customer.
Mr. Speaker, a little after the election I had a message published in a newspaper to thank my constituents for the confidence they had put in me. In that message, I said, "Unless the government make deep changes in the way of financing the public sector and bring forward amendments to the Bank of Canada Act, the plagues of inflation and unemployment will continue to ruin our economy and our society". And I am convinced of that today more than ever.
I was sorry to note that the Speech from the Throne shows no intention from the government to set new ways of financing the public sector. It means that on such matter the new government will act just like the former government did. One should not forget, however, that the same causes produce the same effects. Therefore, Canada will still have budget deficits of $10 billion or $11 billion as was the case in recent years; the national debt will continue to increase and absorb a high proportion of government revenue which now comes from taxes, and that will prevent the government from getting the necessary funds for the undertaking of public works which
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
would create jobs for thousands of unemployed people and at the same time realize useful projects requested by the public for a long time.
The Speech from the Throne contains practically nothing regarding the lowering of voluntary retirement age to 60, yet this would be a valid solution to the problem of unemployment among the young and would allow our country to use this vast reservoir of human potential to increase the gross national product, thus reducing our trade deficit, and it would also be a means of preventing delinquency among the young.
The throne speech is also practically devoid of anything on the establishment of a guaranteed minimum annual income, yet the federal government has spent considerable sums of money on studies of all kinds on this subject. When will we go ahead with it? I do not want to press the government too much, but since it has many studies on the subject, which we paid for, 1 want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) to consider seriously the possibility of introducing before Parliament legislation to implement this policy which will help in the administration of the country, namely as regards unemployment insurance, but also in the area of social welfare.
I am nonetheless happy to see the intentions of the government regarding parliamentary reform which it wants to introduce in Parliament, as well as its proposed legislation on the rights of Parliament and of the public to information. We shall certainly support the measure when the moment comes if it is really positive and if it really aims at getting to the bottom of the problem.
I would like to talk about many other things, but time is short and 1 do not want to impose on the House. However, 1 am convinced that all our colleagues in the House, and even the members of the press and the Canadian people are interested in knowing what will be our position this evening concerning the amendment proposed to the main motion. We have wanted to act responsibly and we have reserved our decision before announcing here in the House and justifying it to prevent speculation throughout Canada. 1 want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. The amendment on which we are asked to vote represents a false problem at this time. In my opinion, in its present form, as a question concerning Petro-Canada, the motion is unjustified. It is imbued with petty politics and partisanship. We are asked to defeat a government which has just come into power and which has inherited all sorts of business, financial and economic failures. Mr. Speaker, we believe that we must seek the common good and go beyond such manoeuvres. In summary, the vote is on one question: do we want general elections or not? Do the people want them?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: It is easy to shout yes, but it is the people who must answer. Do the people want two months of electoral campaign? We have just come out of an election

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
campaign and of five months of waiting for Parliament to be convened so that we may study seriously the problems and the administration of our country. Do the people want expenditures of $50 million and several months of uncertainty? It is a known fact that minority governments are generally the best for our country. We had the proof of this when the Trudeau government held a minority and when for many months this administration was to the liking of the people and every bill introduced in the House received serious consideration. We were able to do in-depth studies. The population wants responsible people. They do not want us to play tricks on them. They made a democratic decision and we must live with the results.
Let us look now at Petro-Canada, a corporation constituted by a vote of this House. The House made that decision. I will say very carefully, Mr. Speaker, that when the government makes a policy statement, we will take a stand on this issue. Meanwhile, it is a waste of time. Let us rather move to the most urgent matters: unemployment, inflation, deficits, instead of putting things off by studying the wrong solutions. In due course we will be able to voice our position on precise projects. I hope that this government will be able to present us with specific projects. We will put them under scrutiny and we will pass judgment on them at that time. And rest assured that we will voice it as strongly as we are usually known to do. But these traditional non-confidence motions are a formality stemming from the British system of Parliament. It is quite normal to present motions of non-confidence. It is within our parliamentary tradition, but that does not entail that the whole opposition must necessarily support them. At a given time last week, for instance, a sub-amendment moved by the New Democratic Party was rejected by the official opposition group which thereby supported the government.
The same goes for our party. So, tonight there will be a vote and we will see the result. Everyone is going to vote according to his conscience and responsibilities. It is indeed interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note tonight the absence in the House of several members of the official opposition. Of course they still have time to make it. It is not up to me to say when our colleagues should or should not be in the House. But I am merely making an observation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, those very people who would be interested in supporting the motion are not in the House at the moment. Let us stop showing off. We must stop showing off. If they really wanted to defeat the government they only had to support the motion introduced by the New Democratic Party last week.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the urgent matters. I want to make something clear. We are a political group determined to take our responsibilities, and on votes that are brought before the House we will consider first the substance of the matter. Our concern is not to support the Progressive Conservative party or the Liberal party but the public good. Our vote on the amendment to the motion on the Speech from the Throne is not a partisan vote in the same spirit that has guided

our attitudes in the past. So, we do not have to make a choice between the two political formations-Liberals or Progressive Conservatives-as we have our own political formation. And as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are going to have to get used to living with different political groups in this House, understanding one another and having a procedure that will enable us always to be in a position so as never to bog down the business of the House, that will enable every member to voice his opinion and will enable at the same time the executive to carry out the will of Parliament in running the business of the country. And if the government makes a slip-up and persists in going against the will of Parliament, then we will have the responsibility of taking the necessary means to let it know it is going against the wish of the people.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone understood and we for all those reasons are going to vote tonight, not for the government or against the opposition, but against the amendment that is brought forward until we know what the policy of the government is on this whole energy issue. I hope it will be courageous enough to state its policy when the time comes and then it will be judged according to its performance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


O (2100)
Marcel-Claude Roy: May I ask the hon. member a question? [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member. It has nothing to do with their next vote but I think, Mr. Speaker, that such information should be provided to the Canadian people. Each time a member of the Social Credit Party of Canada rises in the House, Mr. Speaker, he always refers to the possible or eventual recognition of the party because they have a certain number of electors. I would like to ask the hon. member whether the choice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question would he please ask the question?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the hon. member, I say quite sincerely that he is a true federalist, but I would like to ask him whether the member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) was chosen as the leader of their party as a result of a vote at a national convention or by a certain number of members in-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The remarks and the question do not relate to the debate. I will recognize the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I would like in the first place to extend my congratulations to the hon.
October 15, 1979

member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) for their speeches as mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Also, I wish to congratulate the Speaker of the House of Commons, the worthy member for Subdury, (Mr. Jerome) although he is not in the House at this moment and the Deputy Speaker, our colleague the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel). 1 pay tribute to their reputation and acknowledged ability to fulfil their duties fairly and efficiently. To the constituents of St. Boniface who elected me to this House, I express my appreciation for their trust, committed as I am to serving them to the best of my abilities.
It is indeed an honour and a privilege to represent the historical constituency of St. Boniface. St. Boniface, east of the Red River, is the southeastern district of Winnipeg, made up of the twin cities or communities of St. Boniface and St. Vital to their municipal limits.
Following the redistribution which took effect for the 1979 election, the constituency of St. Boniface lost the community of Transcona in the northeast, and the majority of its farm territories in the south and in the east of the constituency which are now in the riding of Provencher. In the area we fondly call the old St. Boniface, Bishop Provencher established the first church in the west, where we find the basilica, St. Boniface general hospital, which was founded by the Grey Nuns, the University College, as well as a concentration of our most important social and cultural institutions. The winter festival of Manitoba, the "Voyageur" Festival, takes place in St. Boniface.
St. Boniface is recognized as the cradle of French civilization in western Canada and it remains the rallying point of French-speaking people. This gives the impression that the constituency of St. Boniface should have a French majority. However the population of that constituency can be divided roughly as follows: 40 per cent have British ancestors, 27 per cent French ancestors and the remaining 33 per cent represent native and ethnic groups, namely, Ukrainians, German, Dutch, Belgian, Polish and Scandinavians, as well as a scattering of citizens from all over the world. Thus St. Boniface is a Canada in miniature; it is multicultural and multilinguistic. After that brief comment on my beautiful constituency of St. Boniface, I should like to comment on the throne speech and its import which, according to me, leaves much to be desired.

As a member of the official opposition policy committee structure 1 have undertaken some particular responsibilities. Coming, as I do, from the prairies, 1 have a special interest in the health and vitality of the western grains economy. This sector of industry is crucial to the prairies and is a key, positive aspect of our national economy as well. That is why I am pleased to be serving on both our agriculture and our transport caucus committees.
The Address-Mr. Bockstael
I must say that I was dismayed that the Speech from the Throne did not contain a specific proposal of policy directed to the advancement of agricultural production in our nation.
As I begin, I want to extend congratulations to the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), who is also the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Admittedly, he has a tough job to do, so in the interests of the west, particularly farmers, and in the interests of all of Canada, we wish him well in his assignment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: We expect to have much good advice to offer him along the way. So far 1 believe he has generally been on the right track in the steps he has taken. I can say that quite confidently, since the announcements from the minister to date, namely, about the Prince Rupert terminal and about more hopper cars and the repair of boxcars, are a continuation or an extension of a policy initiative already put in place for the new minister by his predecessor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: He is following the pattern established, confirming that the pattern was a good one. Indeed, 1 hear that the new minister now says there really was not very much wrong with the western grain transport policy ideas of his Liberal predecessor, even though he vehemently criticized the former minister prior to May 22. It is my understanding that the new minister is most likely to pursue virtually the same policies as those pursued by the former minister except, and 1 hope the public recognizes the fact, that these policies will now be sold or marketed more effectively across the west by a flock of backbenchers out there who previously could only express criticism for same.
What has happened to our grain transportation system since Parliament last met in March? Newspaper reports around Christmas time indicated that the start-up problems affecting grain movements in the 1978-79 crop year had been overcome, so farmers could expect a shipping performance close to the record set in the previous year. 1 remember the mood of optiminism which emanated from that much publicized meeting in Winnipeg early last February when the premiers and key federal representatives looked forward to a reasonably good level of grain movement by the end of the crop year on July 31.
In the latter part of February some statistics reported in Hansard showed that our grain-moving performance to that date at Vancouver was 13 per cent ahead of the previous year, and that at Thunder Bay it was 6 per cent ahead in terms of cars being unloaded. I ask, if this was the case at Christmastime and through February, what happened from March through to the present time to put us so far behind for 1978-79 and, to date, for the 1979-80 crop year?


An hon. Member:: The weather, I suppose?

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Bockstael


Robert Theodore Bockstael: If things looked so good in the spring, what transpired to cause a shortfall of one million to two million tonnes compared with our exports a year earlier? Why are there almost as many ships waiting at Vancouver and along the St. Lawrence as there were during the most difficult periods the previous government had to face?
Let us look at the more serious political point. Why do we not hear anyone among the Conservatives complaining about this situation any more? How their practices change when the shoe is on the other foot! It is an outright display of a double standard.
For the immediate future, to the middle 1980s, the major challenge for the grains industry will be to produce and move ever-increasing volumes of grain just to maintain our share of the world market. Since the demand for grain in the world is likely to grow by some 30 million tonnes per year, Canada, according to the expectations of the Canadian Wheat Board, might anticipate a 50 per cent increase in our level of exports by 1985.
Farmers will want to take advantage of this opportunity through advanced methods of tillage, through the use of fertilizer and chemicals and less summer fallow. Once farmers and prairie producers have done their job, we need a grain handling system to move grain efficiently to world markets. In 1977-78, for example, when the system took in a record volume of grain deliveries, in excess of one billion bushels, a corresponding record export of 830 million bushels stretched and strained our facilities to the limit.
To meet the challenge of exporting over one billion bushels annually the Liberal government initiated the purchase of 8,000 grain hopper cars, and it is encouraging that the new government is continuing to modernize the grain fleet. The previous Liberal government undertook extensive boxcar repair programs, and the new government is following that lead. The previous administration, through its prairie branch line rebuilding program, was committed to upgrade western rail lines to modern hopper car standards.
Liberal action to boost grain-handling capacity included an improved quota system, the block shipping system, the Mants report on grain car allocation, the appointment of port coordinators for Thunder Bay and Vancouver, reciprocal railway routing agreements, incentives for line upgrading through the Rockies, the groundwork for a terminal at Prince Rupert, expansion of terminal space at Vancouver, and improvements at and on the way to Churchill.
It was disconcerting to note that rather than pursue that latter policy, the spokesman for the task force on grain transportation, made up entirely of Conservative members, declared that the port of Churchill was a luxury we could not afford. As a member from Manitoba, I was appalled that an experienced Conservative member of Parliament and a fellow Manitoban, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) who complained that he was passed over for a cabinet post, could express such a damaging opinion on the welfare of his constituency province.

Could it be that he was only following his own leader's example? The Liberal members of Parliament from Manitoba, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and myself-


An hon. Member:: That's it, pal.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: -will fight to make sure Churchill receives the wherewithal to attain future record-breaking results. The Tory caucus have their task force's report. It is time they revealed their ready answers which seemed so obvious to them a few months ago.
We intend to be far more constructive than they ever were when they sat on this side of the House and made it incredibly difficult to pass into law such beneficial measures as the two-price system for wheat and the western grain stabilization plan, both of which stand to the everlasting credit of the previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Grain is likely to be one of Canada's greatest growth industries of the 1980's. Already there is hardly a more positive element in our balance of trade picture. Grain is crucial to the west, and vital for the national economy of the country. The future for grain is bright, if we get the added production, about which I am confident, and if we get the added capacity to move it. This is where the new government's responsibility lies.
Western farmers, Canadian producers, small business operators, are concerned about fuel and energy costs and about their heating costs. They are wary of sleight-of-hand proposals advanced by this government to put a little money in one pocket of the people who have a mortgage, while at the same time picking the rest of their pockets for twice as much to operate their vehicles, their implements and their machinery, and to heat their homes and their buildings. These people must realize that this government's headlong race toward world prices for oil and gas will primarily serve to make the rich province of Alberta, the oil companies, and many speculator financiers so much wealthier. As is stated in the words of a song, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," ever widening the class disparities, while this government spouts pious phrases advocating the nation of Canada as a brotherhood of communities.
The people of Manitoba are concerned with the great exodus of doctors, architects, engineers and many other professionals who have found themselves obliged to move from Manitoba to seek out an opportunity to earn a decent living in a more favourable environment.
The citizens of St. Boniface are industrious and hard working, employed in the multiple and varied industries that are located in this constituency which is also the work place and residential domain of the owners of many small businesses. Recently workers from my area were adversely affected by the announced closing down of the Swift Canadian Co. Ltd. Meat

October 15, 1979

Packers in St. Boniface where 600 hundred or more jobs are being eliminated in favour of more modern facilities elsewhere. Other branch plants of industries located in Winnipeg are also announcing their intended closings. This will further tarnish the employment picture. In most cases these people seem to be the victims of policies embraced by a provincial Conservative government. They have reason to fear that this federal Conservative government might not only emulate but surpass their provincial counterparts in stifling the whole of Canada. The electors in my constituency are fearful of joint federal-provincial cutbacks in the area of health and social services.
In conclusion, I want to repeat my earlier inference that the Speech from the Throne was more significant in what it left unsaid than in what, in fact, it stated.
We in the opposition share the concerns of Canadians working in industries related to the Department of Agriculture, such as livestock raising, poultry raising, dairy farming, cheese production, production of diversified specialty crops, and other food production industries. It is noteworthy that the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) had nothing to add in favour of these tremendously important industries in what can be termed a rather short Speech from the Throne. That is further tangible proof that this government is only prepared to continue, sustain, implement and expand the policies initiated by the Liberals. The attitude of the government members must reinforce the opinion which the people of Manitoba hold of them. Throughout the general election the people in my area were amused at the Conservative slogan "Let's Get Canada Working Again".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Consider that in England, although she had to deal with far greater numbers, the right honourable Margaret Thatcher convened Westminster in less than two weeks after the election. In Canada, it took 140 days for the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to reconvene Parliament. This long delay logically raised everyone's expectations. One of the famous quotes of the Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill, in reference to the Battle of Britain in 1940, was, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." I am sure the great gentleman will forgive me for altering it and applying it to our situation today after hearing an extremely shallow throne speech by saying "Never in the Parliament of Canada have so many waited so long for so little."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you, as everyone else has done, on your election as Speaker, but, what is more important on this occasion is my wish to pay a special tribute to the democracy and freedom of our great nation of Canada and to commend our Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the government on the Speech from the Throne, particularly as it relates to new opportunities to restore the House of Commons, so that it may
The Address-Mr. Wenman
become an even greater arena of freedom and opportunity for members of Parliament.
As a child of the Second World War I remember attempts, on Remembrance Day, to teach me the value of freedom and democracy. As an adult I remember trying to teach my students in school about freedom and democracy. I felt at that time that I had some measure of understanding of the meaning of freedom and democracy. Having returned just recently from southeast Asia, I appreciate this great land and great democracy even more.
Recently, in Vietnam, after a long conversation over a dinner in Ho-Chi Minh Ville, my elderly Communist host said to me, "I was born in war and have lived my whole life in war-will I live to know peace?" I responded that if any of us are to know peace in the world, we must first start by knowing truth. He then asked, "Ah, but what is truth?" This in turn led to further definitions and a philosophic interchange, but my conclusion following my trip is that the question "Ah, but what is truth?" is that this is truly the dilemma of southeast Asia and it is one of the prime reasons that I travelled there.
Later in a discussion with a group of Vietnamese intellectuals I posed the question, "Are you free? Do you know freedom?" Again following a long exchange a Vietnamese woman with a doctorate from Harvard said, "But, Mr. Wenman, how do you define freedom?" I responded, "I see freedom as the absence of coercion", and she responded, "Yes, but that is only one part of freedom that perhaps comes following freedom of security of food, shelter, and provision for health and education."
I might well have added that freedom of security of food, shelter, and provision for health and education is an extremely limited freedom without the absence of coercion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. It being 9.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Section (4) of Standing Order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment of the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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

October 15, 1979
The Address-Mr. Wenman


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.
Alexander	NAYS Messrs. Andre	AtkeyAllard	(Calgary Centre)	Baker(Nepean-Carleton)
It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 10.07 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 16, 1979