1979-10-12

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the fact that the throne speech made mention of amending certain legislation respecting veterans, and given the absolute desire on the part of Canada's veterans to have their own, sole minister of veterans affairs instead of presently having the Departments of Veterans Affairs and of National Defence downgraded to a dual ministry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Lamontagne):
That the Prime Minister immediately pay proper respect to the veterans of Canada by appointing a minister whose specific responsibility will be the Department of Veterans Affairs, and at the same time give the members of Canada's Armed Forces their own full-time minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to that Standing Order, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CANADA WORKS
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an urgent and pressing matter.
In light of the changes made by the Progressive Conservative government to the Canada Works program, and in view of the injustices that such changes have produced in many ridings where there exist wide economic disparities, as in Saint-Henri-
Westmount, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens):
That the present government abandon this bad policy and that the Canada Works program be reinstated in its original form so that communities and the unemployed who are really in need may benefit from it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: 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 with every increase in the Bank of Canada's interest rate, the chartered banks use this opportunity to increase the margin between what they pay depositors and what they charge borrowers, and in view of the fact that these same banks in the third quarter of this year were paying taxes at a rate of just over 10 per cent on ever-spiralling profits, thus increasing the burden on the working taxpayer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House call for immediate controls on interest and profit margins in the banking industry, and the imposition of a surtax on the banks to bring their effective tax rate to 50 per cent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 12, 1979
O)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, having recently returned from southeast Asia, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the starvation, war and inhuman suffering vested upon the unfortunate people of Kampuchea, formerly Cambodia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That the Government of Canada encourage and assist non-governmental organizations and other voluntary groups, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Red Cross, in delivering humanitarian food aid to Kampuchea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


PETRO-CANADA CONDEMNATION OF PLAN TO DISMANTLE CORPORATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the multinational oil companies have consistently operated in violation of the public trust, as witnessed by a recent court case and investigations by the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs under the Combines Investigation Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde):
That the House condemn the government plan to dismantle Petro-Canada and that it instruct the government to cease any actions which would jeopardize the ability of Petro-Canada to operate in the interests and defence of all Canadians and as an instrument of public policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of the utmost urgency.
Given the plight of the six Polish sailors who have jumped ship in St. John's, Newfoundland, in the hope of being granted refugee status in Canada so as to escape the burden of oppressive dictatorship in their native Poland, and given the fact that this matter was brought to the attention of both the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) more than two weeks ago, with no action having been taken, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan):
That this House call upon the minister of immigration to exercise his ministerial prerogative and immediately issue permission for these sailors to remain in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA WORKS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: 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 Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) has unilaterally cut off Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba from Canada Works funding, including many regions like the Churchill constituency which has areas of unemployment exceeding 80 per cent, and has justified his actions by counting only the number of UIC beneficiaries rather than the number of unemployed people to determine the qualifying rate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration consider the actual number of people who are unemployed in a riding in determining which ridings in Canada are eligible for Canada Works funding, instead of using the deceptively low figures of the labour surplus rate.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 12, 1979


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to debate a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the government decided to freeze and cancel federal construction projects in Atlantic Canada this past summer and terminate hundreds of jobs of term and contractual federal employees, and freeze vacancies, causing inferior government service in vital areas, resulting in rising unemployment during the short construction season, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey):
That the government reverse its decision to freeze federal activities in areas of high unemployment like Newfoundland, and reverse its policy toward the federal civil service in Newfoundland of fire and retire.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering the effect of high interest rates on small businesses and food producers in this country and the potential resulting unemployment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips):
That the Minister of Finance immediately bring down a budget with measures contained therein to alleviate such adverse effects caused by these high interest rates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GENERAL BERNARD W ROGERS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the oral question period, may I invite all hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor who, 1 am sure, goes with our very best wishes in his immense and important responsibilities on our behalf. I speak of our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Bernard W. Rogers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Before asking the question, however, I should like to congratulate her on taking over the leadership of a great department of government. I have had the experience of serving in that department and know what a dedicated and professional staff is at her disposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My question concerns the decision of the government to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 1 should like to ask the minister, now that she is settled into her job and shows increasing confidence, whether she has been able to reverse the misguided policy of the Prime Minister who has stated that he moved too early, that he moved without being briefed on all the nuances, and that it was a mistake. Is she now able to tell the House that she has succeeded in getting her colleagues to reverse this misguided decision of the government?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that the hon. member has been spending much of his time in Cape Breton, but I am sure that is not beyond the reach of news of what has been going on in this area.
I should like to inform the hon. member, if he is not aware of it, that the government has appointed a very distinguished Canadian in the person of the Hon. Robert Stanfield as its ambassador at large to look into this question along with many other factors that apply to Canada's relations with countries of the Middle East. He will make recommendations to the Government of Canada on how its relations with those countries can be improved, can be upgraded and, in fact, how we can contribute to the development of peace in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 12, 1979
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister's commentary, but she has not told the House whether the policy on moving the embassy will still stand. I take it that policy is still the policy of the Government of Canada, namely, to move the embassy to Jerusalem. I ask the minister if that is right. Will she tell the House and the country-and this is the first time we have really had a chance to ask-what Canadian interests are served politically and economically by pursuing this very misguided policy?


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, in appointing the Hon. Robert Stanfield to look into this question and to make his recommendations to the Government of Canada, the hon. member should be aware that there were no restrictions placed on Mr. Stanfield's inquiry as to the people with whom he consults, the countries he visits or the recommendations he makes to the government. When those recommendations are made, the government will then further elaborate on that facet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the minister has failed twice to answer whether it is still the decision of the Government of Canada to move the embassy: the answer has not been given.
1 ask the Prime Minister whether it is still the decision of the Government of Canada to move the embassy, or has that decision been suspended? I ask him, further, are the terms of reference of Mr. Stanfield-an undertaking of what we regard as quite an unnecessary mission-broad enough to allow him to recommend against the movement of the embassy and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Are the terms of reference that broad, or are his terms of reference only relating to timing and modalities? Please tell us what the minister has failed to tell us, whether it is still your policy today, never mind hiding behind your former leader, to move the embassy.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the shock of moving across the floor has affected negatively the former minister's ability to understand information transmitted across the House, even if it has not reduced his verbosity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has replied to the question. She has indicated that there were no conditions set upon the recommendations that will be made by the Hon. Robert Stanfield as a result of his inquiries in the Middle East. We would not, naturally, send a man of his stature on a mission of this importance if we had told him what to report before he went. We are going to base our decision on the report that he gives when he returns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


MANDATE OF HON. ROBERT STANFIELD
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he confirm that the cabinet has given special envoy ambassador Stanfield an entirely free hand in deciding whether to meet, or not to meet, the PLO representatives as confirmed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and reported in The Globe and Mail dated October 11 ?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, and has been clear since the terms of reference of ambassador Stanfield were released, that he is free to meet all groups, all spokesmen who can contribute to the development of an efficient Canadian policy on the Middle East.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The right hon. Prime Minister knows Mr. Stanfield holds the rank of ambassador; does he not then realize that such a meeting could be interpreted as recognition of the PLO?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of Mr. Stanfield is that of ambassador extraordinary and I underline the importance of the word "extraordinary". He was appointed ambassador to investigate a very specific situation. Because of the adjective "extraordinary", there can be no implication of official recognition, by the Canadian government, of any group with which he may have consultations, except in the sense that he has the right, the duty to meet such persons as hold enlightened views with regard to the development of a strong and efficient Canadian policy on the Middle East.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. First, 1 would congratulate the minister on his appointment and wish him well.
In view of the recent foreign policy review announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will the minister reconsider his own position and introduce a white paper on defence before going ahead with the $2.3 billion new fighter aircraft purchase?


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes and I extend the same to him as the defence critic of the NDP. As to other defence critics, I hope you will do as well as your predecessors.
October 12, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: In so far as the new fighter aircraft are concerned, I have been in correspondence with the hon. member and have made my position rather clear to him, that we intend to go ahead with the purchase of the new fighter aircraft as scheduled.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: In view of the government's welcome initiative on freedom of information, will the minister confirm that a report entitled "DITC, Industrial Benefits Evaluation Report, July 1979", was prepared by members of the negotiating committee in his department regarding the new fighter aircraft and, if so, will the minister table this report in the House of Commons?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will table the necessary reports when the final decision has been made and the contract signed. At that time I will give all the information I possibly can without endangering national security.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this report, of which I have received a copy, clearly indicates that the so-called plane competition is nothing but a gigantic charade, will the government follow the advice of Dr. John Shepherd, vice chairman of the Science Council of Canada, and delay the purchase of this plane for a limited period in order to avoid placing a major, serious and expensive burden on the people of Canada?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the philosophy of the defence critic for the NDP that this is going to be something that will not be absolutely necessary. We do not enter into these purchases lightly.
As far as the report is concerned alleging that the competition was a sham, I believe the report was not quite the one that it is purported to be. It was leaked some time ago. I did not find it worth while commenting on at the time. It was turned down at the first level of review. I am sorry the hon. member has taken it so seriously. The leaking of reports on a serious matter like this makes it more difficult to carry on negotiations, but negotiations have been carried on in a fair and competitive manner despite the leaking of that report.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the Minister of State for International Trade. I wish to ask if he is aware and if he can inform this House how many companies have expressed their objection to the proposed move of the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise number as to how
Oral Questions
many companies have spoken to me or my department on the question of the move of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. A number of companies have expressed some concern. We are keeping in close contact with them in order to be able to monitor the commercial impact of any policy adopted. This is a policy that is of considerable importance to our department.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I should like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that contracts between Bell Canada and the Arab nations worth in excess of half a billion dollars are presently in suspense. Is he aware, also, that Canadian companies need no longer bid on Iraqi projects, more specifically on a major aeroport facility?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The whole question of bidding on contracts in the Middle East, as well as the status of existing contracts in the Middle East, is not entirely clear. There is no question that there has been some hiatus as a result of the announcement in June-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but, on the other hand, a number of contracts have been successfully concluded and as far as we are aware no contracts have been cancelled.


SUGGESTED RELOCATION OF CANADIAN EMBASSY IN MIDDLE EAST-EFFECT ON TRADE
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. It concerns a telegram which he has received from the telecommunications trade fair in Geneva sent to him by Mr. Don Cruikshank, president of the Canadian Telecommunications Carriers Association, in which he says that doors are being slammed in the faces of Canadians and that Arab delegates are telling Canadians that contracts worth literally billions of dollars and thousands of jobs will not be negotiated or renewed if Canada does not quickly resolve its position on the possible removal of our embassy from Tel Aviv.
I am aware that the Prime Minister has sent Mr. Stanfield on a mission, but that sort of thing takes a long time. What is the right hon. gentleman doing in the meantime to ensure that Canadians will not lose out to their competitors who, as he knows, are taking advantage in this area at this international trade fair because of the government's stand concerning the removal of the embassy to Jerusalem?


Charles Joseph Clark: I have not seen the telegram to which the hon. lady refers. I will check my files and look at it and, of course, I will reply to it as required.
With regard to the more substantive part of the question, we believe it is now broadly understood by Canadian businessmen and others dealing abroad, as well as by the countries and traders with whom they are dealing, that the mission of Mr. Stanfield has a very broad mandate, that Mr. Stanfield intends

October 12, 1979
Oral Questions
to report as quickly as possible, and that the government intends to act very quickly once we are in receipt of his report. We hope that any suspension of contracts to Canada which might result from the present situation will be brought to an end as quickly as possible.

[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Communications who seems to be just as complacent as the Prime Minister who, two days after receiving that telegram, said that everything was fine and would be settled and that especially Bell Canada, now busy carrying out a very important $1 billion contract in Saudi Arabia, "were sleeping low".
I understand that not only "they are sleeping low" but they are skating on thin ice, because things are not as satisfactory as the government suggests and immediate action is required. I want to ask the minister whether he knows if the contracts already signed are still being carried out, if payments under existing contracts already signed are made and if negotiations about new contracts worth at least $1 billion are going on at the same pace as before the untimely statement of the government?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have had an opportunity on occasion to speak to representatives of Bell Canada with respect to their contracts in the Middle East. 1 do know there has been some difficulty during the course of the summer. I had meetings with the president of Bell just before his most recent visit to the Middle East and I expect to be seeing him again shortly. The government will certainly do everything possible to facilitate these important contracts.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: The Prime Minister indicated a few seconds ago that he would react very quickly following Mr. Stanfield's return. Could he be a little more specific and explain whether quickly means ten days, 15 days, or what? Will we have to wait until next spring? And has he already received from the Secretary of State for

External Affairs some elegant words to create the impression that he is going forward when in fact he is backing up?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when I need elegant words, I look for them myself. Some ministers are indeed endowed with elegant eloquence. I can reply directly to this question by saying that no specific timetable has yet been set up. Mr. Stanfield, I think, is about to leave the Middle East. He is expected here in a few days. I hope he will be able to provide us with a report on his mission within the next few weeks and, having looked into it, that we will be able to take concrete measures as soon as possible, maybe before or immediately after Christmas.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. 1 should like, first, to congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in carrying out the duties of this portfolio in addition to his other responsibilities.
The hon. gentleman is aware that his department has recently referred two cases of possible criminal violations under the Combines Investigation Act to his colleague, the Minister of Justice, involving the Western Transport Association, based in Alberta, and the Household Goods Company. Will the minister confirm, first, that a meeting took place this morning involving himself, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport and, second, that the Minister of Transport is attempting to intervene personally in this possible prosecution by the Minister of Justice?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for his good wishes, and I would inform him that the source of his information is completely and totally erroneous.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The minister did not tell us whether, in fact, a meeting did take place this morning. Did a meeting take place with the three ministers involved and, if such a meeting did take place and the Minister of Transport is attempting to squelch any possible prosecution, how does this accord with the concern expressed by his colleagues about the involvement of former Liberal cabinet ministers in the judicial process?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There has been a whole series of ongoing meetings at both the officials' level and at the ministerial level. At that ministerial level there is on many occasions, obviously, a need for real consultation among the ministers about departmental concerns. There is no question there was a meeting this morning about this matter, but nothing has been squelched by
October 12, 1979

any means, by anybody. It is one of a series of ongoing meetings.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN QUEBEC WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the announcement yesterday by the president of General Motors of Canada of a $2 billion investment in Ontario, and the great hopes the Minister of Supply and Services has raised of an imminent major investment by this firm in the province of Quebec, which now seems to be an illusion, could the right hon. Prime Minister indicate whether he will amend the policy of his government and allow the immediate completion in Quebec of important federal construction projects which are all systematically paralysed just now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to this question. The first deals with the decision of GMC. I understand that this corporation has not finalized its decision concerning alternative investments with major implications in the province of Quebec and this is something the federal government is currently encouraging through its Department of Regional Economic Expansion and other government agencies. As to the second aspect of the question, we want to examine very seriously all major projects in both Quebec and the rest of Canada to make sure they are worth while and useful before committing considerable amounts of public money to their realization.


Yvon Pinard: If we come back to reality, it seems almost evident now that, in the short term at least, GM will not invest a significant amount in Quebec. And the government has been elected for five months and a half. Can we expect that work will resume in a near future at the Guy Favreau complex in Montreal, at the research centre in Boucherville and at the penitentiary institutions in Donnacona, Drummondville South, Mirabel, at the cartography centre in Sherbrooke, and dozens of major construction projects, federal projects which would ensure a federal presence in Quebec and which are systematically paralysed, as indeed confirmed publicly and shamefully by the Minister of Supply and Services?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it has not been established that GM will not make any major investments in the province of Quebec in the short term. There has been no official announcement to that effect. I cannot confirm whether such investments will take place, but there has been no such decision concerning investments either in the short term or in the long term.
Oral Questions
As for the projects mentioned by the hon. member, it is essential for us not only to ensure a federal presence in the province of Quebec, but also to get efficient projects under way in that province which will answer real needs. That is why we are currently reconsidering the projects the hon. member has talked about as well as others. We hope to be able to come to a decision very soon and then we will implement these projects as soon as possible in a way that will have a true impact.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: 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 is very simple. Would the minister, through the proper diplomatic channels and through her department, once again on behalf of the Canadian people protest this illegal process and abuse?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and tell him that we have already initiated action in that regard.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister relating to the announcement that was made by GM to invest $2 billion in Canada. First, I would like to know if that decision of GM was approved by the government and, second, considering that when Ford Company had also announced important investments they got a generous subvention from the federal government, I want to ask the Prime Minister if in the case of the investments announced by GM there was a contribution from the federal government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that was not a decision which involved support or opposition from
126

October 12, 1979
Oral Questions
the government. It was a private decision by the company. There is another decision which is going to be taken by GM concerning the province of Quebec, and in which the federal government, particularly the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, is deeply involved. That is the kind of decision which is similar to the one concerning Ford Company in the case of Ontario.



INQUIRY WHETHER GM RECEIVED SUBSIDY TO INVEST IN QUEBEC

Fabien Roy: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to address a very precise question to the Prime Minister. Is this $2 billion project financed by the federal government in any way?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. As I am not sure, I can look into the matter and give a more precise answer on Monday. According to the minister, the Canadian government had absolutely nothing to do with the decision announced yesterday by GM.



CULTURAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the new Secretary of State. On this my first opportunity to question him, I would like to congratulate him on his new responsibilities.
In view of the Secretary of State's own statement back in November of last year, during a budget debate, that our institutions of culture are starved for funding, that such neglect of culture can only seriously jeopardize the well-being of this nation, and that we must bring a new vigour to federal responsibility, can the Secretary of State now bring vigour or even adequately cope with the very complex and troubled cultural field when his responsibilities also include communications as well as inner cabinet responsibility for the whole onerous area of social policy? Surely, no individual can do justice to any one of these while carrying responsibility for all three.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind comments and for his encouragement. I am delighted that he is rereading some of my old speeches. Many officials have been rereading my old speeches, as well, in the past few months.
I welcome the support of the hon. member, particularly in his important role as spokesman on behalf of his party with

respect to cultural responsibility and Secretary of State matters in this country. I very much share with him the important concern we all have with respect to adequate funding for artistic activity. The hon. member will know that we have already moved to restore the $2 million which was cut from the Canada Council by the former government last summer.



FINANCE


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister is purported to have expressed some frustration- which I suppose is understandable-but with regard specifically to the fact that interest rates are continually increasing and yet consumer spending, borrowing and credit expansion seem to be ever present-in other words, we have a circumstance where there appear to be high interest rates but we do not have tight money-I am wondering whether it would not be appropriate for the Minister of Finance to discuss with the Bank of Canada the question of revising, among other things, the monetary aggregates which are currently being used to determine money supply.
I understand that the bank is still adhering to M-l, and it seems that in periods of high interest rates such as we are experiencing there is a tendency to move into term deposits included in M-2, so could that matter be taken up with the governor of the Bank of Canada to determine whether new criteria might be introduced at this time?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Bank of Canada pays particular attention to the M-l category of monetary aggregate. I will certainly discuss with the governor and the Bank whether they think there is any change needed or whether they should consider any other ranges, M-2 or whatever. However, at the present time the Bank does not see any need to consider anything other than M-l, which is its primary target.
By the way, I had my regular weekly meeting with the governor of the Bank of Canada this morning, and we discussed this and other issues.

[DOT] (U50)



POST OFFICE


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. I should like to take the opportunity of this first question to congratulate him for
October 12, 1979

his appointment and at the same time wish him the best of luck. I hope he will demonstrate in his negotiations both firmness and tolerance, as we have done in the past.
The Postmaster General is undoubtedly aware of the fact that we are rapidly approaching the deadline when most collective agreements in the Post Office come to an end, that is December 31, 1979.
In view of some statements, press releases and comments to the effect that negotiations are dragging on and considering that in some circles the possibility of a strike has been raised, and also in order to reassure Canadian businessmen for whom postal service is essential and vital in certain cases, not to mention the general public-

-do the hon. Postmaster General and the government intend to take vigorous and responsible measures, before it is too late, to ensure that there will be no slowdown or disruption of postal service at such a crucial moment? If so, what form will that action take?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank my hon. friend, the former postmaster general, for his kind congratulations. I want to assure him that those problems with which he wrestled before being moved to the other side of the House are being attended with considerable diligence by his successor.
Specifically, there are pre-negotiations taking place with several of the unions. The contracts in a number of unions expire December 30. There is an issue of importance, and that is that probably this will be the last contract negotiated under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
I have suggested to the unions that possibly they would want to enter into short-term contracts to carry over into the period in which the Crown corporation would be established. My discussions with the union leaders have been amicable. I am sure the hon. member would want me to go into negotiations with a note of optimism, as I am sure he would be doing if he were in my place.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Regarding his announcement yesterday that we will be honoured with a visit by the President of the United States and Mrs. Carter to Canada, and that he will be addressing a joint session of Parliament, obviously the government will be evolving appropriate receptive initiatives.
Is any consideration being given to formal endorsation of the President's initiative with respect to the SALT 11 agreement?
Oral Questions
If yes, perhaps it may even be appropriate for such endorsation to come from both Houses of Parliament.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: But I know-


Mr. Allmand:: You have set aside time for that.


Charles Joseph Clark: I know hon. members on the other side, accustomed to other habits, will not believe this, but that question was not arranged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me say, on the serious question of substance, that shorlty after the conclusion of the arrangement I wrote on behalf of the government and the people of Canada to President Carter expressing my support for the initiative he had taken. I think it would be a very useful initiative for the House to consider, on the occasion of his visit, having the letter which 1 sent as the head of the government endorsed by unanimous resolution of both chambers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment. Can the minister tell the House what the intentions of the government are regarding the urgent problem of establishing a policy respecting the disposal and transportation of dangerous chemical waste? Specifically, my concern is for the people of Winnipeg and Birds Hill who, like people in other cities, have the main line of a railroad running through their neighbourhoods. Does the government intend to bring back for passage the transport of dangerous goods act and, if so, when?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, yes, and soon.


Mr. Chretien:: That is the first answer we have had today.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of

October 12, 1979
Oral Questions
Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I should like to welcome him to his responsibilities by directing this question to him: it arises out of a reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on Wednesday concerning the custody of Privy Council documents. The Elouse will recall that the Prime Minister stated at that time that he was satisfied with the order in council passed by the previous government and also satisfied with what he called the arrangement in place with respect to the transmission of documents to the McDonald royal commission.
In light of this statement by the Prime Minister, may I ask the Solicitor General if it is still his intention to try to change the arrangement for the transmission of documents to the McDonald royal commission and, in particular, what is now the role of the cabinet committee which he allegedly informed the press was set up to make recommendations on this matter?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. In respect of the production, accessibility and declassification of all documents outside of those physically under the control of the Privy Council office, we are devising new schemes, a new methodology as far as procedure for the declassification.
I may say 1 have been terribly disappointed and surprised to learn that there was no regular system whatsoever in respect of the previous administration's policy, or lack of policy, regarding declassification of documents. We are attempting to set up a streamlined procedure for that type of document outside of the control of the Privy Council office, that type of document which does not fall within the bounds of any constitutional convention so that these matters can be discussed in a sensible way instead of there being an ad hoc decision which 1 gather has been the practice in the past.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, there might be some dispute as to whether there was not an arrangement in the past for doing the same thing. May ! ask the Solicitor General whether he intends to attempt to declassify documents of the previous government?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Is the question, am I attempting to declassify documents of the previous government?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The answer is most emphatically yes.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there are many new parliamentary and constitutional theses being put before the House. First we have the Prime Minister telling one of his backbenchers that perhaps we should endorse a treaty between the United States and the
[Mr. MacGuigan.)
Soviet Union which has not been endorsed by the United States Senate. Then we have the theory that an ambassador-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -because he bears the title "extraordinary", does not talk on behalf of the government.
I think the most urgent question, from the point of view of parliamentary practice, is to the Solicitor General to inquire if his answer about declassifying documents of previous governments or administrations will go counter to the undertaking given by the present Prime Minister to myself, by Mr. Pearson to Mr. Diefenbaker and by Mr. Diefenbaker to Mr. St. Laurent to respect the confidentiality of documents of previous administrations, and that they be made public only with the consent of the previous administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, if that was a question and if it was directed to me, 1 am sure the previous prime minister appreciates that documents covered under the constitutional convention, which the present Prime Minister has directed will be explicitly honoured, cover cabinet documents, judgmental opinions of cabinet ministers and matters such as that, which certainly I feel-and I believe my cabinet colleagues feel-we have no business inquiring into. There is no question about that.
But when we are talking about other types of administrative and governmental documents, if the Leader of the Opposition is now indicating to me that there was a very set procedure for the declassification of documents in the past, then I must admit to him my failure, after having attempted now for about three months to find out what that procedure was, in finding no case or very few cases in which there has been legitimate declassification of entirely redundant and unnecessary documentation within that previous administration. If he can tell me that there was a system, I would very sincerely appreciate his outlining to me some day what that procedure was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was a system, and I suggest to the Solicitor General that he get the information from his officials, particularly from the secretary of the cabinet. If he is indicating that he is going to respect the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, which does cover the documents that he seemed to include in his declassification process, by his answer to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, 1 am satisfied with that undertaking.
October 12, 1979



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who is the first one in 11 years that I could call friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 hope he will remain that way and will become a friend to the millions of travelling public in this country. I hope he is anxious to undo some of the outrageous doings of the previous minister of transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the minister undo the act of the previous administration in that they agreed to the abandonment of daily VIA Rail transcontinental passenger service between Capreol and Winnipeg, and either order the permanent retention of that route, or at least extend the present order in council that expires at the end of this month which has prevented the abandonment of that route? Will he do that at least, and will he order the CTC to hold the hearings that were never held in respect of that 930 miles of track where there is no alternative form of transportation available?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the hon. member for his kind words.
1 presume that his actions will back up his words.
The matter of northern Ontario rail passenger service to which the hon. member referred is being referred back to the Railway Transport Committee and I understand it will be dealing with the issue next week.

[ Translation]



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. We know that the Farm Credit Corporation is now celebrating its fiftieth anniversary of foundation; there is, however, a lack of available funds to grant loans to farmers because, of course, of increasing farm selling prices and increasing plant building costs in the hog industry. Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us if he intends to introduce soon a new bill to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act in order to help farmers borrow money at preferential rates for the good operation of Canadian agriculture?
Oral Questions


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly appreciate the hon. member's question and his interest in the agricultural industry, particularly as it relates to the Farm Credit Corporation. 1 am sure he is aware that employees from across Canada met last evening at their convention and to celebrate their fiftieth anniversary.
1 appreciate the hon. member's interest. We are studying the situation very carefully. 1 can indicate to the hon. member and the House that within a matter of days, hopefully next Monday or Tuesday, I will have some very positive things to say on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation to the agricultural industry.



PORT OF MONTREAL-INQUIRY WHETHER CORPORATION WILL DELAY PAYMENTS RESPECTING THOSE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY STRIKE

Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister take action to help farmers, particularly in Quebec, who are being seriously prejudiced by the strike in the port of Montreal and who have to pay $30 to $35 more a ton for grain and thus suffer losses of $20 to $25 on the production of each hog? Could the minister tell us if he intends to ask the Farm Credit Corporation to delay the payments the farmers have to make since they are now producing at a loss?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's supplementary question, though it bears little relationship to his first question. He refers to a very serious situation that has been with us for quite some time.
I want to assure him that I have met on a very frequent basis with people affected by the strike at the port of Montreal, including the Canadian Fivestock Feed Board. In addition, that strike not only affects livestock producers in the area serviced by the Montreal elevators; it also very severely affects feed manufacturers and even domestic millers.
Fet me indicate to the hon. member, as I did in response to his first question, that because of the importance and the priority this govenment places on the agricultural industry, I hope to be in a position next week to have some positive things to say with reference to the livestock people who have suffered so severely over the past number of months as a result of that strike.

October 12, 1979
Introduction of Bills POINT OF ORDER



MR. CLARK-EXPLANATION OF ANSWER GIVEN DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order simply because the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) may quite probably have misinterpreted something I said in response to a question by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). What 1 indicated as having done as the Prime Minister of Canada immediately after the meeting with Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Carter was to send a letter to both Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Carter approving and endorsing the initiative that both had taken.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I of course think this is proper and correct, and I myself have done the same thing in the past. However, I was indicating my surprise when the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicated to his backbencher that the suggestion of having both Houses of this Parliament endorse that treaty, to use-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: No, he did not say that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question was, would the Prime Minister consider having this House and the Senate endorse the SALT agreement? That was the question and the Prime Minister said it was an excellent suggestion. He may not have understood the question or he may not have understood his answer, but I indicated my surprise at that answer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to amend the Department of Labour Act.


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

John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, respecting grants to municipalities,
[Mr. Wise.)
provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 11, 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).
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, I would like again to add my name to those who have congratulated the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) on the manner in which they moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I would also like to preface my remarks by stating my sincere appreciation to the people of Ottawa Centre for the confidence they demonstrated in me on May 22. Ottawa Centre is indeed a unique riding, and I am honoured to represent its electors. The Parliament Buildings are located within its boundary thereby creating a federal presence known nowhere else in Canada, as I mentioned last night.
There is another dimension which I believe is characteristic of few other ridings. Ottawa Centre is, in my mind, a microcosm of the country itself. It has a wide range of cultural, social, economic and political groups making it a true reflection of the vertical mosaic which is Canada, a mosaic in which each individual contributes in his or her own unique way to the strength and vitality of Canadian society.
The people of Ottawa Centre also represent a group of Canadians who I believe are better informed than their peers on matters of public policy and their implications. They feel the intimate presence of four levels of government and have demonstrated their ability to voice reasoned opinions on the issues of the day.
However, while the pervasive federal presence has certain advantages for Ottawans, there are also very real disadvantages. The advantages are, of course, the many amenities which accompany the physical location of the seat of government. The Parliament Buildings, the National Arts Centre, the Museum of Man, the canal, the National Art Gallery, the Supreme Court, the National Library, the Garden of the Provinces, the Postal Museum and the Bank of Canada are all located in the riding of Ottawa Centre and are a source of pride and enjoyment for the people of Ottawa Centre and, indeed, for all Canadians who take the opportunity to visit our truly beautiful city.
October 12, 1979

Much credit should be given to the National Capital Commission which has played, and continues to play, a vital role in the beautification and maintenance of the region. However, the actions of the National Capital Commission have also created in the past problems arising as a result of the commission's taking decisions without fully involving the citizens who are affected. To overcome this problem, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to direct the National Capital Commission to establish an effective consultation mechanism and to take essential decisions on land use or other matters only after full and extensive consultations have taken place with the municipal and regional governments.
I also urge the government to follow the lead of the former minister of finance and to bring forward much needed amendments to the Municipal Grants Act. This is a matter of great concern to the municipalities in the National Capital Region, as well as to municipalities across Canada where there is a federal presence. However, the inadequacy of current grants in lieu of taxes is of paramount importance here in Ottawa due to the degree to which the federal government permeates our lives. Ottawa is heavily dependent on these grants for operating revenues, and local property taxes, which are among the highest in Canada, reflect the extent to which the federal government has failed to pay its fair share. Let me again urge the government to move expeditiously on this matter in order to alleviate the unfair financial burden which has fallen on the citizens of Ottawa.
Turning to another point, one of the main concerns of the constituents of Ottawa Centre is the government's intention to cut the public service by 60,000 jobs over the next three years. This is a part of the government's austerity program, and I cannot emphasize strongly enough the need to approach this matter carefully. This action by the government will not only affect public servants in Ottawa but those across the country. My riding in particular will be hard hit due to its large percentage of public servants. This, in turn, will have a spillover effect on the private sector in Ottawa. The small businesses in my riding are heavily dependent on the purchasing power of public servants as well as on services obtained by the government on a contractual basis. The unemployment figures in Ottawa will, without question, rise significantly under this policy and it will take years for the city to recover its present financial base.
The people affected, some of whom have been in the employ of the federal government for decades, will never recover. We are talking about people; they are not merely numbers to be thrown around at the whim of the government. These are people who have dedicated their lives to providing valuable services to their fellow Canadians, and this is hardly the thanks they deserve. The citizens of Ottawa Centre, my constituents, represent the backbone of the federal public service. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that their efforts are recognized and that they receive fair and equitable treatment. This is not accomplished by perpetuating uncertainty about their employment future nor by implementing poorly conceived policies in the name of restraint.
The Address-Mr. Evans
The lack of certainty about job security is having a very real negative impact on all public servants and certainly is affecting the quality of service provided to the public. The prospect of unemployment during these difficult times is serious indeed.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated its intention to bring forward special measures to assist youth, women and native Canadians. I urge this government to expand these measures to include assistance to the public servants who will be affected by these reductions and who will require retraining to ensure continuing employment opportunities. It is the very least they can do for those who have proven their loyalty and their commitment to the federal government and the people of Canada.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has met with all local area members of parliament as well as with the representatives of the cities of Ottawa and Hull, the regional municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton and the Outaouais and the local business community. At this meeting, the minister publicly acknowledged the adverse effects which the government's restraint program would have on the region and on public servants. He also stated that a compensation program would be established to offset these effects. Further, he agreed to form a task force to identify problems being encountered by the business community and to aid in preparing a plan of economic diversification for the region.
This task force was to have been established by the end of September. To date, we have heard nothing further from the President of the Treasury Board. I wish to remind him of his commitment to the people and local governments of the region. He must assume his responsibilities immediately. He must establish the promised task force and he must clearly define the nature of the financial assistance he is prepared to grant to affected communities and their citizens. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the President of the Treasury Board to act now. I also urge the President of the Treasury Board to reintroduce the equivalent of Bill C-12, which was introduced in the last session, dealing with public service pensions. This would provide a safeguard for indexed public service pensions and an opportunity to examine the feasibility of the indexing of pensions in the private sector.
The question of public servant involvement in the political process is also a matter of concern to my constituents. It is my strong belief that public servants should be entitled to the same rights as other Canadians and should be permitted to support and work for the party of their choice. This would involve amending the Public Service Employment Act, and I call upon the government to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.
I listened with anticipation to the Speech from the Throne for new things to come for Canada, for the promised "new directions" in economic policy which would bring forth growth and development. While I was heartened by the promises of an early introduction of freedom of information legislation and reforms to improve the efficiency of Parliament, I was totally disappointed in the lack of direction shown by the government in the economic area. After 16 years as the official opposition

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. Evans
and four and one half months as government, it would seem reasonable to expect a clear definition of the economic policies which the government intends to employ in leading us to the "promised land".
However, what was said indicates without a doubt that there is no new economic policy to be introduced and no economic leadership on the horizon. The government appears to be experiencing technical difficulty in forming any clear ideas, as witnessed by their reluctance to bring down a new budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) indicates that the earliest he could bring down a budget is at least a month away, which will mean the government will have been six full months in power. This is a sad commentary for a party which when in opposition boasted of having all the answers.
The global community is experiencing hard times, Mr. Speaker, and Canada is no exception. Canada needs specific policies, not the vague generalities presented so far by the government, policies which will provide the leadership necessary to ensure that the 1980s is a period of economic growth and prosperity.
Canada needs specific policies today, Mr. Speaker, not in months or years after endless study and consultation. The government has decided that, rather than explore new ideas and give priority to the economy, it is far more beneficial to spend its time undoing what has already been done in the interest of all Canadians. Examples of that to which I allude are Loto Canada, Petro-Canada and offshore mineral and petroleum rights. In all cases, the government's actions represent, to my mind, a total disregard of the rights of all Canadians in an attempt to placate the provinces. This is closely related to the stated promise of provincial status for the Yukon. Does this mean the tiny population of 23,000 people will be given full ownership and control of the vast resources of the Yukon, resources which up to now have belonged to all Canadians? If so, Mr. Speaker, it is the greatest sell-out of all time and a total derogation of the government's responsibility to the nation.
Mr. Speaker, this government does not appear to have a vision of Canada as a unified whole; rather it sees Canada as a conglomerate of fractional parts. In the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, this government raises serious questions as to its grasp of the dynamics of nationhood, how, in fact, all parts of the country should strive to work together in harmony, to achieve its collective as well as individual goals.
I sense a growing uneasiness, Mr. Speaker, among Canadians over the apparent lack of concern by the central government for the interests of Canada. Its concern seems to be for the parts rather than for the unified whole. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this dangerous lack of national perspective is leading to policy formulation which will seriously hinder the ability of the central government to speak effectively for all Canadians.
I am in full support of consensus rather than confrontation when such consensus is possible and consistent with the national interest. As an example, Mr. Speaker, I will draw upon
[Mr. Evans.)
energy policy. This is a matter which touches all Canadians. It is a case of such pressing importance that whether or not consensus can be reached with the provinces, the federal government must, as the representative of all Canadians, take action. With this government, Mr. Speaker, I have yet to see any indication of a willingness to take such action, even though it is becoming abundantly clear that a consensus is likely to be impossible to achieve. Indeed, it may not be possible to reach any multilateral solution.
Mr. Speaker, there is a train of thought which appears to permeate the Speech from the Throne: that is, a lack of confidence by this government in themselves and in their fellow parliamentarians' abilities to represent the needs of their constituents. As members of parliament, we represent ridings from all regions. Our role is to represent the interests of our electors within a national context. These same electors vote for representatives in the provincial legislatures to represent their interests falling under provincial jurisdiction. It puzzles me that this government appears to have come to the conclusion that provincial representatives and premiers can better appreciate and serve the needs of Canadians than can federal representatives and the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), even in areas of federal jurisdiction.
Under this illusion, the government is apparently prepared to extend rights to the provinces which will undermine the effectiveness of the federal government and reduce the mandate given to it by the Canadian electorate. Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the notion of decentralized power when it will compromise the work being done by Parliament on behalf of all Canadians.
Another point which indicates the undoing philosophy of this government, Mr. Speaker, is found in a recent speech given by the minister of social programs. He indicated the new direction the government is planning to take with regard to pensions. He said and I quote, "We will be placing more emphasis on selectivity than on universality". Mr. Speaker, this raises a whole host of questions and demonstrates a naive view of the operation of social programs. Does he realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is often less costly to run a universal program than a selective one, due to the substantial cost of administration, monitoring and policing? Apparently not, since no mention of these considerations was made in his speech.
My estimation is that in the case of pensions, a regulatory body would have to be established which would all but eliminate any potential savings, not to mention the invasion of privacy which would result from monitoring and the concern which would be caused senior citizens. These are who are having a difficult time now and who may be short-changed with the introduction of a new system. Senior citizens must be assured financial security. I have already heard from many senior citizens in my riding on this matter. Their concern is great, and they are extremely worried about their future under this government. Mr. Speaker, to harass the elderly with such off-the-cuff statements is not only irresponsible but cruel. Our senior citizens have given the best years of their lives to the building of this country. All they ask is basic financial security
October 12, 1979

in their retirement years. Mr. Speaker, I implore the government to rethink this whole matter.
1 also call upon this new government to bring forward legislation in the competition field, especially as it relates to corporate mergers. Canada must have effective competition law, especially in view of the heavy private sector emphasis of this government.
The lack of a clear policy on energy in the Speech from the Throne is of deep concern to me. With the inevitability of rising energy prices the serious question of transfers of wealth and their implications for the economy comes to the fore. How does the government intend to offset increased prices for low income groups and small businesses whose expenses are often dependent on the price of oil, and how will they ensure the availability of renewable substitutes? Mr. Speaker, it is hoped the government will in fact take an aggressive stance with regard to research and development in the energy field, a stance which will not rely totally on the private sector, which has lacked the motivation in the past.
My final point, Mr. Speaker, relates to language training for newcomers to Canada. This has become a matter of some concern to me. A large number of my constituents speak neither English nor French. It is my belief that the government of Canada has a responsibility to such newcomers; a responsibility to ensure that adequate facilities and training are available to allow their learning of one or the other official language. Language training is essential if people new to Canada are to feel at home in their new country and are to participate fully in Canadian life. 1 call upon the government to review the situation and to bring forward policies to resolve the problem.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to state again what an honour it is to represent the people of Ottawa Centre in this House. Ottawa Centre has had a tradition of good, solid and effective representation and 1 intend to do my very best to maintain that tradition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you on your selection as Deputy Speaker and compliment you on the work you have done in the past. I am sure it will be of a comparable standard in the future.
I should also like to compliment the mover and seconder of the motion in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I have heard several of these speeches and I feel their calibre and their recognition of the significance of their position deserves special mention. When they read the records of this House I am sure they will read what they have said with pride compared to maiden speeches by other members of the House with the same responsibility. Their constituents have every right to be proud of the manner in which they conducted themselves.
One of the things which seems to be typical of this House at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is an assumption by those on your left that there is absolutely no problem in the government placing itself in a firm position; that every minister should have every policy in place and ready to proceed; that every-
The Address-Mr. McCain
thing should be running exactly as members opnosite think it should, as if no change had ever taken place and as if it were not necessary to become acquainted with new responsibilities. Of course, such is not the case. I believe that exploiting the problems of the short period the government has been in office does not do credit to those who make such comments.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the complete lack of attention to important affairs which was exhibited by the former government. Perhaps those who criticize will then show more consideration if everything does not happen exactly at the moment they think it should.
During the summer, members of the government were plagued with problems. Backbench members of the government were the communicators of these problems to the responsible ministers. My first problem arose from the fact that in my constituency there is a laboratory structure, Huntsman Marine Laboratories of St. Andrews, which is not an arm of the government but which does operate in fisheries research as a contract agent for the Government of Canada.
In December, 1978, after long negotiations, it was agreed by the then minister of fisheries, by the Huntsman Marine Laboratories and by the research branch of the department of fisheries that the Huntsman Marine group should go forward with their experimentation in salmon, particularly genetic research. This research included trying to trace down where salmon will best propagate, where it will best spend its summers, how it winters in the sea, how we can get salmon to return to its spawning grounds, and to find out what are the hardiest and healthiest species of salmon that we can develop. In May this group had not been assured that money was available and were having to go to the bank to borrow money.
Bear in mind that this contract was completed in every detail in December. It was approved by the minister of fisheries. In June I received a call from the director of that branch and he said, "We have not received any money from Ottawa." He told me they had had to go to the bank to borrow money because the money was not voted by the government prior to the election call. The money may have been in the budget, but what had not happened was that necessary applications had not been made to the Treasury Board. Therefore, the actual expenditure was never authorized by the government for a contract negotiated in December, and the government went out of office on May 22.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member but there is a precedent being created in this House at this time. One of the members who has responsibility for the chair is taking part in a partisan debate. There is nothing in the rules to stop this, but as the member has been nominated to a position of quite some importance in this House as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, I would like to caution him. In order to protect the integrity of the Chair, he should try to constrain his remarks and express them in a non-partisan manner.
134

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. McCain


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of this situation. We did consult with the Chair and we put the hon. member ahead of a previous speaker in order that he could speak before taking his place in the Chair and not after. This will not be followed as a general practice. The hon. member had asked to speak in the debate before his appointment and we decided to let him do that.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that there is nothing personal in the intervention I am making. Mine is an endeavour to protect the position of the hon. member, who now has the floor, in future debates which will be taking place when he will be sitting in the chair occupied by Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the worry expressed by the opposition whip, may I say that for many years I have expressed serious reservations about the role of the Deputy Speaker-and I say this without any comment or reflection on the present incumbent-in that in his usual role the Deputy Speaker occupies the chair during much of second reading debates and is not necessarily involved at the Table. Unfortunately, it has been the practice of this House, to me a matter of serious regret, that the Deputy Speaker votes in a partisan way.
I hope that one of the reforms of the House this year will include a clear indication that if he is to preside in the chair rather than presiding at the table as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, on those occasions the Deputy Speaker will not vote as does Mr. Speaker. It is better to appear to be fair than to be fair and yet come down and vote in a partisan way.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that this is the second time in two days that we on this side of the House, and especially two members from the province of Quebec, who are the ones who have stood up to defend a British tradition. Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board tabled some estimates without recommending them. This is not in the British parliamentary tradition. We have to remember that the party in power follows the British tradition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Maybe those remarks are partisan too.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West with respect to the difficulties which I know are difficulties that you share. I think all of us in this House want to ensure that the position of the Chair is inviolate in this House. I am certain that view is shared as well by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. I hope my friend, the opposition whip, understands the significance of the remarks made by the government whip and our willingness to abide by those traditions.
While we are talking about traditions, I understand that Mr. Speaker is prepared to rule on the point of order raised yesterday with respect to the estimates. Perhaps the opposition

whip could find the opposition House leader and that matter could be dealt with now.


An hon. Member:: He is here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), I must say that as much as I appreciate the concern of all members for the protection of the Chair, including its incumbents, as the hon. member has said there is nothing in the rule book. There is nothing other than what Standing Order 10 says, which I will read to the House:
10. Mr. Speaker shall not take part in any debate before the House.
Of course, in the process of our debate hon. members always address themselves to the Speaker, whoever is the incumbent at that time-either the Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees or Assistant Deputy Chairman. Precedent has been created to the effect that incumbents of the chair refrain from speaking. However, there are other assemblies where they do. Perhaps this is something for the House to resolve if members want this question to be decided and included in the Standing Orders.
In the meantime, I know that the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte was aware of the situation even before the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle made his remarks. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte insisted on making this speech before stepping up to the Chair to support us in our work. It is for that reason that I have to allow him to complete his remarks.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacEACHEN-SUBMISSION OF ESTIMATES TO THE HOUSERULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) before he starts his speech, but I had overlooked earlier today resolving a point of order that had been raised yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen). I was reminded of it and I thought I should try at this moment to regulate it because the House, I believe, depends on some resolution of the problem in terms of future business, perhaps even later this day.
The point of order raised concerned the tabling yesterday of the spending estimates by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) and the absence of having a declaration by the President of the Treasury Board that he recommended the estimates to the House. The estimates carried with them the usual recommendation from His Excellency but no statement was made by the President of the Treasury Board upon the tabling of the estimates.
When the point was raised yesterday, there was participation in the discussion by the President of the Treasury Board
October 12, 1979

who indicated that he was confirming his action specifically. His action was an intentional one of tabling the estimates and taking no further action.
During the course of the discussion, one of the participants was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who suggested something that would have been somewhat an inevitable course in any research of the matter, that is to examine what had been done by previous finance ministers. From research going back 20 years, I can report to the House that on several occasions, in fact on most occasions, a statement was made by the minister of finance on the tabling of the estimates. That is to say, during the tabling of documents, the estimates have been tabled by the President of the Treasury Board and then followed by a statement.
Under our present practices, upon the calling of "Statements by Ministers", a statement was made by the minister which had some explanatory effect in respect of the estimates. However, I am not able to discover in any of those that those statements contained the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board that these estimates be accepted by the House, certainly not in a formal way. While that may have been inferred from some of the statements, it was not done in a formal way.
Furthermore, and I am going from memory here, I believe that upon the change of government in 1957, the President of the Treasury Board or whoever was acting at that time, on the tabling of the estimates, did precisely the same as was done yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board. I can be more specific here. It was the Hon. Donald M. Fleming, then minister of finance, who, as reported on Tuesday, October 15, 1957, took precisely the action that was taken yesterday on tabling the estimates, taking no further action.
Whatever arguments that may lead to in terms of discussion or debate, of course, remains open. I only have the responsibility to deal with the point of order as to whether it is a requirement and an essential part of Parliament and its practices and parliamentary responsibility for the finance minister or the President of the Treasury Board, upon the tabling of estimates, to indicate at that time in a specific declaration that he asks for the approval of the House of those estimates. I cannot find any authority for that proposition. Therefore, in regulating the narrow point of order which was raised yesterday, I have to set it aside.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I accept fully everything that you have said. There is no difference at all between us. I believe the situation that developed yesterday is quite different from any situation to which you have alluded, namely that we had a message from His Excellency recommending the estimates to the House. The simple point is that I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) whether he recommended these estimates to the House and he would not tell us. That puts in doubt whether the message of His Excellency in recommending the estimates to the House carries with it the advice of his ministers. That is all.
Privilege-Mr. MacEachen
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) missed the point also, because the point arose when the question was asked and no answer was given. Today we do not know from any member of the government whether this message came from Government House, as it were from His Excellency, without the advice and recommendation of the ministry.
I have raised that question and I am asking why it is that yesterday the President of the Treasury Board would not say that they were recommending the estimates to the House. Are they or are they not, or is His Excellency acting on his own? That is the only point.
The position is as clear as crystal in Erskine May, which says that the Crown, acting with the advice of its responsible ministers, makes known to the Commons the pecuniary necessities of the government. Yesterday the Crown made known the pecuniary necessities, but we have not yet been told, and it arose when the question was asked, whether he was acting with the advice of his ministers. If he is, of course, it means that the ministry is recommending these estimates to the House.
May I say that I am not going to pursue it procedurally and ask Your Honour to do anything further, but I intend to pursue it at a later stage when it comes to putting the estimates to committee, because we do not intend to accept any procedure until we know whether the government is recommending these estimates to the House.
I accept fully what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but I must say respectfully that it does not deal with the political question that I raised of how the House can receive estimates until it knows whether they are recommended by the responsible ministers.


An hon. Member:: Nit-picking.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member talks about nit-picking. This is a very fundamental point that will become apparent to members opposite as we go on into this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I think the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso capsulized the matter. It is a political matter, not a procedural one. The procedural one has been regulated and he will have opportunity to do what he says he will do, pursue it when the matter is again touched upon. In any case, the point of order is now resolved and we can now return to the continuation-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might set something clear. The point of order has been resolved. The estimates are now appropriately tabled. It has been the custom in this House when that occurs, and I understand that custom is to be observed on this occasion, that the estimates are referred on consent to the standing committees of the House. I spoke to my learned friend with respect to whether that would be appropriate following whatever Your Honour's decision might be on these estimates.

October 12, 1979
Privilege-Mr. MacEachen
Are we now in the position of having to obtain the consent of the House in order to move that motion, because it might be appropriate if we did move the motion to send the estimates now tabled to the appropriate standing committees. Is the House prepared to give its consent, which has been normal in every session that 1 have been here-I have been here a number but not as many as my friend, of course-in order that the House can properly deal with the expenditures of government, that the estimates go to committees? Can I ask for the consent of the House, and if I ask, will that consent be received now and I can go ahead and do that?


Mr. Speaker:: It would appear that the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) is exploring the possibility of consent, first of all, to start committees and then to refer the estimates to them, because at the moment the committees have not been established. Since both these things have to be done it would seem to me that consent might be explored while we continue with the debate on the Speech from the Throne.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give consent the moment the ministry accepts its constitutional responsibility and tells the House it is recommending the estimates to the House, and that it put the words in the mouth of His Excellency that this House take the estimates and pass them. If that is done we will be very co-operative.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we, too, are quite prepared to give consent to the making of the motion to refer the estimates to the standing committees provided the condition to which Your Honour has referred has been met, namely, that the committees have been established.
I understand that the report from the striking committee is ready-obviously I understand that because I am a member of the striking committee. If that report can be made some time this day and approved, then the estimates could be referred to the various committees. Perhaps that could be done at two o'clock or at five o'clock or at some time today and we would give the required consent.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I feel I must say a word about some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen). We are often on the same wave length, but whatever wave length he is on today I think he is drawing an awfully long bow. After all, if it were true that His Excellency the Governor General, without the approval of the government of the day, was recommending estimates to this House, we would have a constitutional revolution on our hands. The Governor General whose capacities some of us know quite well, has no way of communicating a message to this House except through a minister.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has tabled the estimates and has given with them a message from His Excellency the Governor General approving those estimates. That surely implies that the President of the Treasury

Board or somebody else in the government asked the Governor General to do so. He could not do it on his own.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall be able to clarify this matter. With all due respect to the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), I felt he was being overly technical when this point was raised yesterday. I was relying on a ruling by yourself, Mr. Speaker, on February 18, 1976, when the then president of treasury board, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), in the process of doing precisely what I was doing yesterday, namely, tabling estimates, went on to elaborate on the tabling. Your Honour interrupted him and said:
Order, please. I feel the hon. President of Treasury Board is making a statement as a minister and this calls for an answer from representatives of all political parties in the House. In addition, there will be a question later. If such is the minister's intention I urge him to continue. If not, we shall have to remain at the document-tabling stage.
Your Honour went on to say:
I have an indication, now, from the minister that it is not his intention to make a statement at this time but simply to table the document.


Some hon. Members:: That is not the issue!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yesterday when I was asked whether I recommended the estimates I felt I did not wish to make a statement and had no further comment other than to say 1 had tabled the main estimates.
If I might deal now with the point which has been reiterated, I would draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order 62(1) which requires that the House not deal with supply matters without the proposal first being recommended by the Governor General. This indicates that the President of Treasury Board must transmit the message from the Governor General to the Speaker to be read to the House, which I did yesterday. There is absolutely no indication, constitutional or otherwise, that we have to recommend the estimates or make any comment at that stage.
Perhaps I might briefly outline the process. I might add I am very surprised that the hon. member, with his long experience, is not aware of it. I did sign the letter to His Excellency the Governor General in Council in which I said:
The undersigned has the honour to submit to His Excellency the Governor General in Council the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on the thirty-first of March, 1980. and advises that His Excellency may be pleased to recommend these estimates to the House of Commons in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
Respectfully submitted
That letter was signed by myself and I am willing to table it. In due course the Governor General did respond with the message which I transmitted to Your Honour yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is now fully resolved. The question of consent both to the reception of the report of the striking committee and then, in turn, to the motion to send these estimates to the committees will have to be dealt with by consent on returning to those separate aspects of our routine
October 12, 1979

proceedings, which consent I am sure the House will facilitate at the appropriate time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I say is this, Mr. Speaker. If the minister would say to the House what he has said to the Governor General, namely, that he recommends the estimates to the House, we would be happy to give consent now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we are continuing to discuss something which is resolved.
In fairness to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), I should say to him that either he should begin his speech now and take two or three minutes, or call it one o'clock and start it at two o'clock.


Fred Alward McCain: I would prefer to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[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 of Mr. Trudeau (p. 37).
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I hope the opposition whip will not mind if I say that he and I have known each other for a while. We have both carried out our partisan duties, but one of the capabilities which must be inherent in a member if he is assigned a responsibility in the chair is that he must shed his partiality while sitting in that chair. I wish to assure the government whip that I am capable of that, and I will do that.


Thomas Lefebvre: "Opposition" whip.


Fred Alward McCain: Old habits die hard, and 1 guess I am in some ways a slave of habit!


John Leslie Evans: Don't get out of the habit.


Fred Alward McCain: Let me come briefly to the subject matter 1 was touching on before, the difficulties of the takeover and the delays which sometimes occurred. The instance which I have already cited can again be exemplified by three others, one at the port of Saint John, and another with respect to the dredging of the Miramichi.
The Address-Mr. McCain
It is the habit of government to say, "Yes, we will do a job". Having said that the job will be done, the final proof that it will be done is when the order of the Treasury Board which actually authorizes the expenditure of the money for the particular project has been passed. That money was not authorized for the port development in Saint John, nor was it completely authorized for an expenditure by the Treasury Board for the dredging of the Miramichi. I would like to draw to the attention of the people of New Brunswick that while a promise of a government had been made, it could only be kept by the actual authorization of expenditure and approval of that expenditure by the Treasury Board. This was not done, yet the people of New Brunswick are under the impression that the money indeed had been authorized, and it should indeed be.
There are a number of problems in Atlantic Canada. I was very interested in listening to the hon. member for Humber-Port-Au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour) yesterday when he suggested that Petro-Canada should take over the refinery at Come-by-Chance. I think that can only be considered in light of the fact that in the six eastern provinces of Canada there exists today a refining capability of 750,000 barrels in excess of Canada's consuming capability.
If Petro-Canada were to assume responsibility for Come-by-Chance at this moment in time, where is the market to be found? I submit that one of the objectives any government of Canada should have had historically and must have in the future is to arrange for transfer of some energy between Canada and the United States, including the transfer of that energy which can be refined in that excessive refining capacity which exists in eastern Canada. Then and only then can Come-by-Chance become viable for Petro-Canada or any company.
I might say in passing that one of my concerns about Crown corporations in any sphere is that public and political pressures to take on non-viable operations may very well strangle Crown corporations. They may very well get into the heavily debt-ridden position experienced by the CNR. It may be necessary down the road, if we succumb to the political pressures expressed in this House, for a corporation such as Petro-Canada to have to rely on taxpayers to bail it out as we bailed CNR out last year and as we bailed it out on two earlier occasions to the extent of something in excess of $2 billion in total. I think this is the result of political pressures to have Crown corporations meet political needs. This is not the way to serve the nation effectively and efficiently.
The agricultural industry of Canada has experienced a great many difficulties. One part of that industry which is experiencing a very serious difficulty at the moment is the potato industry, which has over-produced on a national basis, according to Statistics Canada, and which may be deprived of a part of its export markets by virtue of a decision made by some authority in the European Economic Community. That decision was that Canada should not ship seed potatoes to Italy from this crop year's production. This has been a market which has been taking an increasing quantity of seed potatoes

October 12, 1979
The Address

Mr. McCain
from Atlantic Canada, and if this market is denied us for phyto-sanitary reasons, that will simply add to the surplus which must be disposed of in Canada.
I implore the Government of Canada to use every possible effort to get a renewal of the privilege to export seed potatoes to Italy this year and also to undertake ongoing negotiations to get a long-term and not an annual permit for their shipment. This decision has a very serious impact upon Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick production, but it also has an impact on Ontario, Quebec and perhaps even Manitoba production because what does not leave the shore as seed will most certainly have to be marketed as table stock or dumped.
This is a very unfortunate picture, but it is precisely the way it is. I understand that there are ongoing negotiations, that Italy is making the strongest possible political representations to the European Economic Community to have it accept Canadian seed potatoes into that market, and that there will be a meeting within the next ten days to two weeks between the trade officials of this country and the community. Along with the influence and the expertise of the Department of Agriculture, I hope that the trade representatives of Canada will be able to get the concession needed to ship seed potatoes to Europe.


An hon. Member:: Send the minister.


Fred Alward McCain: The minister is a very competent guy. I would be happy to entrust the potato industry into his hands. I hope he will have time, and if it becomes that serious, I am sure he will go.
The plight of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is rather serious in many ways. As a result of over-exploitation and a failure to supervise the catch of many species in adjacent waters to our shores, the population was depleted to the point that it was very difficult to make a livelihood. It became necessary to impose catch and licensing restrictions upon the industry. These licensing restrictions have been carried to excess. As the stock is replacing itself as a result of more controlled catch, I believe the time has now come when licences must be issued to more fishermen.
I want to compliment the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) on his remarks yesterday in the House. There is no man in the House who has as practical a knowledge of the fishing industry as the hon. member for South Shore. He epitomized that in his remarks-his expression of interest and his pursuit of a more generous treatment by the Department of Fisheries of the fishing industry.
How serious is this situation? In the last ten years the cost of boat replacement has risen threefold. That is out of all proportion to the inflation rate affecting Canada in general. The cost of gear and equipment has risen an equal amount or more. On top of those factors, today the fisherman is faced with an interest rate-and has been for the past two years- which, if he must finance the boat by means other than his own catch, pyramids the cost of that boat by another one, two

or threefold depending upon the terms of the financing. Then it becomes a very expensive operation. Coupled with that is the fact that young people are not allowed to get licences because there are restrictions and limitations upon those who can be licensed. Also there is a restriction upon the transfer of the licence from an older fisherman to a younger one.
These restrictions must be re-examined. As we have attempted to keep young people on the farms, there must be some way to attempt to keep young people in the fishing industry. But under the regulations which we inherited, this is virtually impossible. If we are to replace the existing generation of fishermen, there must be a relaxation of the licensing procedures. In view of the tremendous increase in the cost of boats and equipment, it is imperative that some kind of reasonable financial operation be set up to make it possible for fishermen to buy boats and make the necessary payment arrangements without interest as burdesome as it is in the open market.
As I have suggested many times in the House, we must have a Central Mortgage and Housing or a Farm Credit Corporation-type of lending agency in government which will permit young fishermen, and even some of the older ones, to obtain short-term financing for the improvement and replacement of their equipment and boats. I beseech the government to give this serious consideration in its future deliberations.
There is a particular problem in my constituency respecting transportation. The commitments of confederation were that products in any part of Canada should have transportation costs which would permit that part of Canada to trade with the rest of Canada. Recently freight rate increases on the roads and by rail have risen to the point where many commodities are no longer competitive in what were the historic markets in Canada when rail rates were at a different level. This requires serious examination as does the transportation of wheat. On a smaller scale it is as vital to the Atlantic economy as is the transportation of wheat to the western economy.
Earlier it was said in the House that if there is a weak section in Canada economically, it weakens all of Canada. As long as transportation costs remain at the present level, or as long as by international trade agreements we have to trade within Canada and not overseas or with the neighbouring country to the south on a basis which would be competitive with them, then we must have transportation structures and costs to allow us to resume the trade which was historically ours in this nation.
In particular I should like to refer to the ferry service which runs from the mainland of New Brunswick to the Island of Grand Manan. Historically the Government of Canada assumed quite a large responsibility for ferries operating in salt water. Except in the St. Lawrence and in one or two of the Great Lakes areas, it did not assume any financial responsibility for ferry services required in fresh water. Some years ago an agreement was signed between the Government of Canada and New Brunswick that the Grand Manan ferry would be subsidized to the extent of $150,000 by the province of New Brunswick, in round figures, and $267,000 by the federal
October 12, 1979

government. But there was no clause for indexing the cost of the federal subsidy. As inflation has stormed down on us, the cost of operating that ferry has risen immensely. Since there was no indexing in the federal subsidy, there has been no increment in the payment to the province of New Brunswick. The province of New Brunswick will find itself in a position this year where it will probably pay $1,600,000 as subsidy. That is a tenfold increase from the original $150,000 subsidy, partly as a result of inflation and partly as a result of an increase in Grand Manan fishing and its fish processing industry.
This matter must be reconsidered. I will not take the time of the House to go into all the details, but if the Department of Transport will examine its records it will find that subsidies are paid for comparable ferries in other Canadian provinces in a much more generous fashion. That much more generous fashion should be applied to this particular ferry. When one looks at CN Marine, one will find that not only have we assisted by tax dollars the operation of ferries in Canada, but also the operation of an international ferry on the Bay of Fundy. I submit Grand Manan should come first; the province of New Brunswick should come first. The burden of financing this service certainly should be assumed to a greater extent by the Government of Canada.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the maritime energy commission. It was a proposal by the former government based on the philosophy that certain gains could be obtained by co-operation on the part of the commission and the maritime provinces. Initially it was hoped that it would be the Atlantic provinces, but that was not going to work out. 1 urge the government of Canada to take a very long and hard look at the possibilities of developing electrical energy in the maritime provinces. It is absolutely imperative that every Atlantic province seek the lowest possible cost of energy.
The Government of Canada has in the past seen fit to extend the credit rating of the Government of Canada to developments in Canada without subsidizing them, but by merely guaranteeing a loan or by borrowing and lending the money to the operation in Canada. This happened initially with the Beechwood dam on the Saint John River and resulted in a very extensive saving for the province of New Brunswick without costing the Government of Canada a dime.
It is from this base that the Government of Canada should commit itself, not necessarily to gifts to Atlantic Canada, which is not what I am asking and not what I am proposing. I am proposing that it would be propitious for the Government of Canada to guarantee to the maritime energy commission the loans it would have to float in order to build the projects which are available.
One of the things which I think might very well be profitable to Canada, and particularly to the maritimes, at this moment in time is the construction of enough generating capability that some of this energy could be exported to the United States eastern seaboard. I propose this because I
The Address-Mr. McCain
believe there is a market there and a fair profit to be obtained from this, a profit which might very well make a major contribution to the reduction in energy costs both for the New England seaboard and for the maritime provinces. I think we should take a look at this as a business proposition.
I have heard members of this House and people in New Brunswick scream about the idea that we would export electric energy or that we would build in excess of immediate demand, but in every instance where this has happened, and it has in three or four instances in New Brunswick, the exporting of energy has in the long run contributed to a lower cost supply of energy for New Brunswick.
I believe it is along this course that the Government of Canada should move in a serious way with negotiations for the establishment of the maritime energy commission, and that it should plead with the premiers of the maritime provinces to sit down around the same table in order to arrive at a common goal, and thus save money both for Canada and for the provinces.
The forest industry in eastern Canada to a greater degree than in the rest of Canada, but also the forest industry in all of Canada, has had a very heavy withdrawal of capital resources by cutting, which has been excessive in some areas. Coupled with this it has had an insect and bacterial infestation which is reducing the live and useful wood in this country. I plead with the minister responsible for forestry and the minister responsible for the environment to act in consultation particularly with the province of New Brunswick, which has had no choice but to spray, and to arrive at the best possible scientific way to control the infestation which is depleting our forest resources in Canada. This is a matter for research and it may be a matter for financing.
There has been circulated to all members of the House of Commons a very definite and detailed picture of the depletion of this industry, showing the necessity for protection from fire and pests and the necessity for reforestation. In view of the fact that it is our largest single employer and our largest single exporter, and in view of the fact that it is one of our largest taxpayers, paying directly or indirectly to the Government of Canada almost a billion dollars, and paying to the municipalities and the provinces of Canada more than a billion dollars in taxes, it is a vital aspect of our economic picture, both to the workers in the field and to their representatives in the House of Commons.
An industry of this magnitude must receive more attention and more consideration by the Government of Canada than it has in the past. I have been encouraged by the remarks I have heard to date from this government, and somewhat discouraged by some of those I have been accustomed to hearing over the past few years.
I will not bore the House any longer, Mr. Speaker, with the needs of my constituency or with things I feel the government should do. I very much thank the opposition whip for his tolerance and I assure him that I will respect the recommendation he made earlier in the day.

October 12, 1979
The Address-Miss Jewett


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: On a
personal note, Mr. Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to be back in this House. It is a particular pleasure to be here as a British Columbian and as a member of the NDP, and to follow my distinguished predecessor, Stuart Lcggatt, in both respects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: 1 had not yet seen the light in either respect when I was here before, although on looking again at my first speech given in May, 1963, I thought how close it came to the NDP position on almost all matters. Of course, those were the days of relatively enlightened Liberalism, days long since past as the events of last evening once again showed.
That first speech of mine was also made during a throne speech debate. Like the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), I moved the address in reply. I hope I acquitted myself as well as he and the seconder, the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), did the other day. Not that they had much to work with. They were robbed of guidance in many fields, those relating to the economy, the constitution, the Quebec referendum and the entire field of international affairs, and it is the latter I want to say a few words about, first, this afternoon.
1 believe there has been no occasion, certainly in my memory, when international affairs has not been mentioned in a Speech from the Throne. Not only was this subject not mentioned in this Speech from the Throne, it was not mentioned at all in the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). As I say, surely this is the first time in a very long while that this has happened.
It may well be that the difficulties the government got into by making too early, too premature and too unthought-out pronouncements, particularly in the matter of moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, caused it to shy away completely from the whole field of Canada in the world today. Surely this cannot be because the government does not know that Canada has a position. Members of the government talked about this, not so much during the election campaign but on many occasions during the last Parliament. It must be because of the premature move they made and to which once again today in question period they could not either say, Look, it was a mistake. We do not intend to move the embassy ', or "Yes, we have this ambassador looking at everything, but as I, the Prime Minister, remarked right after the election, it is only the timing of the move that is in question". Surely the government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald), who did her best to help the Prime Minister on an earlier occasion, could have said one or the other.
This government wants very much to restore confidence. It wants very much to restore the faith of the private sector in which it very strongly believes, in the Government of Canada and in Canada itself. How can it restore that faith when it does not make clear to business concerns what its position in

relation to the move of the embassy is. It should not be made some time down the road, but now. The government's lack of position, obviously, is creating uncertainty. The answers of the minister and of the Prime Minister this morning, although they may have been further amplified at a press conference since then, have not been satisfactory.
The other reason why the government made no mention of international affairs must be that the government does not know, particularly in the fields of aid and perhaps I should also mention peacekeeping-two of the cornerstones of foreign policy in the past years-in what direction it wishes to go. There are conflicting signals. In her speech at the United Nations, my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I know would have been here this afternoon because I told her I would be speaking but has been otherwise engaged, said that Canada was still concerned about the human rights of all people; that the human rights of all people were what mattered more than anything else; that specifically as we look into the decades before us, it is the countries at the bottom end of the economic scale which face the bleakest future and the lowest growth.
I believe she spoke at that time in her compassionate, humanitarian, progressive spirit about the problems of the poorer nations and the need for respect for human rights everywhere. That was expressed in the minister's speech at the United Nations. A few weeks later in a speech to the Empire Club, the minister did a complete turn-around. She then suggested that it was not the poorer nations that needed our continued compassion and concern, but it was those nations on the brink of development which were breaking through and which would soon become established as strong economic units. She suggested that we had not been taking into sufficient account the economic returns which Canada could expect in both the short and the long term. She suggested that we should also look very closely at our political and economic relations before we decided with particular countries whether aid should be extended.
The minister said in her speech at the Empire Club:
Is it really the right thing to do, to divorce aid policy entirely from the rest of our relations, both political and economic, with the country concerned.
In the speech which the minister gave a few weeks before at the United Nations she said:
There is growing recognition that development assistance does not imply the foisting of one country's economic and social philosophy on another.
What had caused the change in the intervening weeks?


Mr. Rodriguez:: The slasher.


Pauline Jewett: The slasher's friend.


John R. Rodriguez: The tough guy.


Mr. Nystrom:: The happy hacker.


Pauline Jewett: The Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) at a meeting of the IMF and the World Bank spoke out very strongly against
October 12, 1979

Canada's aid policy. The minister suggested that not only should aid not be increased, but that it should be diminished. Somehow or other the message got to the Secretary of State for External Affairs because her speech at the Empire Club might well have been written by another hand-


John R. Rodriguez: By the slasher.


Pauline Jewett: -compared to her speech at the United Nations. In any event, the message got to her or, to mix the metaphor, a terrified mouse came into her office pursued by the financial cat from Newfoundland to tell her that it was no longer possible for Canada to continue its aid policy of the past, and that it must now only look to countries on the brink of self-sufficiency.
In this proposed switch the Secretary of State for External Affairs has bypassed CIDA's own twin objectives, the assistance of countries in the achieving of self-sufficiency and the meeting of basic human needs; in other words, concentration on the poorest in the poorest countries. These CIDA priorities were approved by the Science Council, the International Food Policy Institute and donor countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
She also ignored the recommendations of the Pearson Commission, OECD, the North-South Institute, and her most knowledgeable colleague on these matters, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), who is now also her parliamentary secretary. She ignored, as a friend of mine said, the many Canadians who are not ashamed to proclaim their humanitarian priorities, and whose support is so necessary if Canada is to live up to her proclaimed objectives.
She tried to excuse this change of approach toward the Third and Fourth World countries by accusing many Third World countries of having branded us as imperialists and, therefore, not worthy of Canadian interest and concern. Even if this were true, that they had branded us as imperialists, 1 hardly think that this should be the reason for deciding to no longer care about the poorest in the poorest countries. But I am told that her comment that Pakistan led the attack of the non-aligned countries in Havana is not in fact true, that Pakistan did not lead the attack on the so-called imperialist countries. Even if the remarks were true, it is a pretty feeble reason to give for changing one's full approach to foreign aid.
The minister also indicated, as had the Minister of National Defence (Mr. MacKinnon) some time earlier, that we should take another look in our role in peacekeeping, presumably also to save money, presumably also because we are a nation that cannot afford enterprises such as peacekeeping any more than the level of aid that we have been giving. To suggest that we take another look at peacekeeping, particularly in Cyprus where there are 30,000 Turkish troops at present, is to me highly irresponsible.
It is because of these conflicts among members of the government on matters of foreign aid and peacekeeping, as well as on the embassy question, that the government presum-
The Address-Miss Jewett
ably decided to say nothing about international affairs in the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister decided to say nothing about it in his own speech. We are told that a standing committee of the House of Commons will have a report from the Department of External Affairs referred to it.
1 certainly do not deplore that; on the contrary, there will be useful discussions. That does not save the minister from saying now, in October, what direction we should be moving in- preferably not conflicting directions. We want a foreign policy not only for the 1980s but right now. We want some indication of where the government is going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Some time ago I wrote to the minister to ask what the government was doing to help in the reconstruction of Nicaragua. This is a country which has had a democratic revolution, the very kind of country that Canada should befriend after it has gone through this democratic process. At that time we had provided only three Hercules aircraft, I think-


Mr. Friesen:: Six.


Pauline Jewett: -three Hercules flights to carry the economic aid and other supplies provided by the private sector in Canada, chiefly by the Canadian labour movement. I received a letter from the minister yesterday saying that this aid has now been increased to five flights carrying $400,000 worth of material, again mainly provided by the Canadian labour movement. She said:
I had hoped to be able to provide you with details of planned reconstruction efforts in addition to our emergency relief activities but I am not in a position to do so yet. I can assure you, however, that officials in my department, in co-operation with those of other departments, arc working strenuously to determine what further assistance can appropriately be given.
The letter is dated October 10. I ask the minister, as a friend whose progressive and humanitarian views I know well, what has happened in the last few weeks that she should abandon all her enlightened, progressive and humanitarian views in a speech to the Empire Club?


John Allen Fraser: She is a lady of abandon.


Pauline Jewett: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say on a happier note how very kind and generous with their time were the embassies in Tokyo and Peking when I recently took a trip there under the leadership of Tommy Douglas. We thought very highly of the staff of the embassies in those two capitals. On our trip we discovered that there is a marvellous opening for Canada in trade with these two countries.
It is my own feeling that the government has not been pushing our trade with Japan very strongly and has not made any inroads at all in what will become a huge market in China except, of course, with wheat and rape seed. Trade is a two-way street and there are many kinds of goods that the Chinese could provide to us, but at the moment, as hon. members know, we export far more to China than they export to us. Not only should we encourage trade with China, a

October 12, 1979
The Address-Miss Jewett
country that should appeal to the minister because, although it has a very low standard of living, it is on the brink of self-sufficiency, but we should extend our relations in one particular and important area, that of our scientific and technical knowledge.
The Chinese spoke to us about this a great deal and gave the example of gold mining, which is only half as efficient in China as it is in Canada, as well as oil extraction and reforestation. They would also like to develop even further the program now under way of exchanging students, scholars and experts between our universities. I would ask the minister to facilitate this program by ensuring that exchange scholars from China can have their health certificates approved quickly. I talked to one Chinese scholar on September 21 who was two weeks overdue at his post in Canada because he had been waiting three months for final approval of his health certificate from our mission in Hong Kong. Why does everything have to go to Hong Kong, already a very busy mission? Surely it would not be too difficult to attach a medical doctor to our embassy in Peking. If we are serious about this interchange of students and scholars, that is what should be done.
I hope that when the standing committee is established a coherent set of policies will be placed before it, policies in which all members of the government concur. I hope to play as constructive a role as I can on that committee and, through its efforts, to see Canada take an even greater lead in its relations, in its aid, in its trade with other countries that are on the brink of self-sufficiency as well as those that are still poor.
There is one other matter of importance to me and, I hope, to all members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to address this afternoon. At least there was one sentence about it in the Speech from the Throne, which is better than nothing at all. It was promised that there will be an employment strategy for women. I was very glad to hear that and will be glad to see it fleshed out.
It concerns me, however, that during the four and one-half months the government has been in office it has not done any of the things it promised in the election campaign. When the government referred to women in the public service during their election campaign they promised that the reduction in the federal public service would have no disproportionate effect on women, as had been the case under the Liberal government. In February, 1979, the number of women laid off was greater than the percentage they formed of the work force in every single branch of the public service. The same seems to be happening now although it is too early yet for all the details to be known. I mentioned one case yesterday where 12 women in the agricultural stabilization board have been laid off. One can find examples everywhere. What did the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) mean when he said yesterday:
Our guideline is no lessening of the number of women working in the public service.
That is simply not what is happening. Obviously he does not know what is happening to women in the public service. Perhaps he does not care.
A second example is women and the unemployment insurance amendments. Referring again to the campaign literature of the Progressive Conservative Party, and 1 am speaking of its document about strategy for women, it refers to the previous government, and I quote:
The government's changes to unemployment insurance eligibility discriminated significantly against women at the same time as the level of benefits received by persons such as single parents was reduced.
According to this article the Progressive Conservative Party will
(a)	keep the existing eligibility criteria for part-time and seasonal workers, who are disproportionately women, and
(b)	maintain the existing level of benefits for men or women with dependents.
That promise was violated immediately after the election.
I am particularly concerned in what this government is doing, following in the footsteps of the previous government, in eventually eradicating the Outreach program as it affects women. The outreach program has been one of the most successful programs we have had. It is a program designed to meet the special needs of women entering or re-entering the labour force. It has trained, counselled and placed a large number of women who had been on social assistance most of their lives. There is one Outreach program in my own constituency, called AWARE, which has trained, counselled and placed hundreds and hundreds of women. Indeed, in British Columbia and the Yukon together the number of women reached by the Outreach program is 6,000. They have been trained and placed at a cost of $250 per job placement while the Canada Employment Centre cost is $700 to $800 a person. The Conservative party have said:
A Progressive Conservative government will restore the necessary funding ($3 million) cut by the Trudeau government from the Department of Employment's Outreach program for women.
The government has restored $300,000. It has said that there will be an additional amount up to $1.3 million, but the government will not say whether this is for the Outreach program for women, the special program for women and their special needs. The government has said nothing that I am aware of about the remaining $1.7 million.
So many of these programs have been cut back that there are only about half a dozen left. One is in my constituency and I believe there is one in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller). No one knows whether these programs will be retained or not. What is so incredibly shortsighted about this is not only the unfairness to women, but the fact that the government will pay more for social assistance and unemployment insurance-if it does not cut back unemployment insurance even more-than it would pay to train and help these women enter the labour force. Even on the sort of "hacker grounds" you would not abandon this program.
The government also promised, again in its pre-campaign literature, that it would strengthen the role of the National


October 12, 1979
Advisory Council on the Status of Women. On page 5 of that literature the following is to be found:
The advice of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is frequently ignored by government, most recently on the changes to unemployment insurance policy. We will first improve the credibility of the council by seeking nominations to its board from national women's organization.
i have inquired and there are still-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that her time has expired. In order that she may continue, she must have the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pauline Jewett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall not crave your indulgence too much longer.
There have been no new appointments yet to fill the vacancies on the National Advisory Council. I respect very highly the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald), another good friend, and I know he is personally sympathetic to strengthening the role of the council. I am sure he is sympathetic to developing the Outreach program and genuinely changing the unemployment insurance amendments. Is he having any influence, inner cabinet or no inner cabinet, when he has not yet been able to change those matters or to put people on the council? Nor has there been any additional money granted to the council, as I understand was promised them some time ago.
The government also said in its election campaign literature that it would further provide that the council report directly to Parliament on any legislation or lack thereof which it feels is of importance to the status of Canadian women. Nothing has yet been said about that.
There are a number of matters I could raise. One need only read the recent report on women and poverty to learn that 16 per cent of adult women in Canada live in poverty. This government said it would address that problem so as to bring about genuine equality of women. Next week is persons' week. This is the week commemorating the famous persons decision when the judicial committee of the privy council said that "women" were "persons", yet the backward steps that seem to have been taken by the government set us back further even than in the last few years under the Liberal administration, which really gave up doing anything after international women's year. As members of parliament we must address ourselves at last to treating women as persons, not as secondary wage earners, not as uninterested people that you can push around, as was done recently in Ontario. Of course, the Tories are in power in that province and that government has just voted that domestics should not come under the minimum wage regulations.
I hope that the minister and the other ministers concerned, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) and the President of the Treasury Board, will at last give substance to their campaign rhetoric.
The Address-Mr. Chretien


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you most sincerely on your re-election as Speaker of this House. It is a most happy precedent for the House to have decided to re-elect a member who served it so well in the previous Parliament. I would also like to offer my most sincere congratulations to the officers of this House and to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and my best wishes in your new responsibilities. I also wish to congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Nearly 16 years ago, when I was a new member, I myself had the opportunity to play the same role and I was very proud for the voters of my constituency to have been chosen to make a speech and to be able to represent them in the House in the first moments of a new Parliament. I also wish to congratulate all the new ministers who have been appointed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). During the last 12 years I was able to sit on the treasury benches, and I believe that we should give members opposite an opportunity to prove themselves. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) said, their task is certainly not an easy one and our role in this House is not necessarily to make their life any easier. For my part, I intend to co-operate with my hon. friends on the treasury benches, but it is to be expected that I might be somewhat mischievous at times because we have often seen in this House the people who are now on the treasury benches and who used to be on this side of the House take a malicious pleasure in keeping me in the House for hours and days at a time on points of order, questions of privilege or debates which took longer than I could give them in view of the work I had to do. I have no intention of being as extreme as they were and I will let them do their work as, having sat on the treasury benches for 12 years, I am well aware that ministers have a very difficult task and that we should give them as much sympathy and assistance as possible.

It is a tremendous pleasure and privilege for me to take part today in the throne speech debate. I must admit that for me and for many of my colleagues it is a strange experience to be sitting on this side of the House. I intend to enjoy completely this experience while I can, because the government's record to date suggests that we will be put back on the other side very quickly.
The Prime Minister told us that Canadians voted for his party because they wanted a change. That is exactly what they got. No political party ever changed so fast as the Tory party did between May 22 and May 23.
Do hon. members opposite remember something called the stimulative deficit? The people of Canada remember hearing about the stimulative deficit in the months preceding the election. The present Prime Minister told the electorate of Canada that the only way to revive the economy was to have

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. Chretien
more government spending and bigger tax cuts. He said that was the only way to produce the larger revenues which would eventually reduce our deficit. In other words, we could not hope to balance the budget somewhere down the road if we did not drive up the deficit now. I objected to that. 1 am very pleased that today they have come to realize that either they did not know what they were talking about or they were trying to mislead the population. Within two months of their election victory, the stimulative deficit was no more. It was an idea whose time had come and gone. Suddenly we need cutbacks.
I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) is not here because, being from the province of Newfoundland, he was always on his feet complaining about the bad effect of cutbacks on that province. However, we suddenly need cutbacks in unemployment insurance and federal transfers to the provinces. We need to eliminate the universality of old age pensions. I could go on and on with the programs being slashed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens).
In spite of all the great speeches made by the President of the Treasury Board over the past four months about all the programs he was going to slash and how he would bring everything under control, the headline in this morning's paper read "Ottawa deficit will jump by $500 million". For months we have been told that expenditures were being brought under control. The President of the Treasury Board blames this on the increase in the price of oil. We knew that last winter when the OPEC nations raised their prices.
In July the President of the Treasury Board made a pronouncement on the deficit. In August he did the same. Today we realize he did not know what he was talking about. Either he did not know how to forecast expenditures, or he has already lost control over the bureaucracy. Today he is telling us the deficit will be $500 million more than he said before.
Despite the fact we were facing an election, I stood in my place as minister of finance and stated that I was not going to try to buy the votes of Canadians, that even though we might be going to the polls we were prepared to face reality. The then leader of the opposition and all his friends talked about stimulative deficits, not cutting unemployment insurance and so on. Now that they are in power, they have completely changed their policies.
I cannot criticize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that much. He has now seen the truth. After waiting for months, I was pleased to see him rise in his place yesterday and say that he supported the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Under the act, the minister has to assume full responsibility for the actions of the governor of the bank. Despite the pressure I was under, I never tried to create the impression that I was not responsible. I always said that I subscribed to the policies of the governor because monetary policy comes under the government.
I wish the Minister of Finance well. I know he is finding it quite difficult. However, I was a bit embarrassed when he said that Mr. Bouey had his absolute confidence, that he had perfect confidence in the governor, because I am sure that Mr. 
Bouey is not yet out of the woods. The last person in whom the minister had perfect confidence was the former deputy minister of finance. As the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) informed this House only yesterday, it was only a couple of hours after the minister expressed complete confidence in his deputy that the Prime Minister fired Mr. Hood.
As the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas stated, the minister was reduced to apologizing to his senior staff for having to place on them the burden of a new deputy minister, a man the minister did not choose, a man the minister did not want as a deputy minister. I like the new Minister of Finance very much, but to see him being humiliated like that in the first days of his tenure in office was unbelievable. I do not know of any minister of finance since I have been around, or even before, not Mr. Fleming, for example, who would have accepted being humiliated in that way by his prime minister.
You know, they used to talk about our Prime Minister's Office-there were supposed to be a lot of people in there who were running things and the ministries were not running things. In fact the new administration have increased the number in that office by 25, or something like that, and ministers nowadays do not even have the freedom in some cases, I am told, to choose their own executive assistants. It is unbelievable that a minister with responsibilities to discharge should be told by some guy from the Prime Minister's office whether a certain person is or is not acceptable to be in his office.
I was glad to see that the Minister of Finance took responsibility for the increase in the interest rate and gave his full support to the governor of the bank. That is the right decision. It reflected the position he had to take. He is responsible. If he does not agree with the governor he can write him a letter and give him instructions. There were a lot of people in Canada who, during the election campaign, gave credence to a speech made at his first press conference by the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister. During that conference he said that in the future a government under his leadership would rely not on monetary policy but on fiscal and budgetary policy-monetary policy would not be used to cure inflation. But the government has no chance. Today, after five months in office, the President of the Treasury Board has to admit that the deficit will be $500 million more than predicted. That leaves the government no room; the business community and the market will see that, despite all the great speeches he made about cutting expenditures, he has failed miserably.
I congratulate the government for permitting the opposition to raise this question in committee, because I should like to ask a few questions on the subject. But I hope the Minister of Finance will be given the free hand he needs in order to discharge his responsibility. This business of imposing upon him a deputy minister he did not want, creates a very bad precedent in the history of the ministry. It is one of the frustrations besetting a minister of finance to find that he has very little control over many of the problems with which he
October 12, 1979

must deal. Nevertheless, it is his responsibility to create the proper climate of confidence, a sense that matters are under control, and nothing could be more dangerous in any administration than to see the prime minister pull the rug out from under his minister of finance.
Of course there is no way in which a minister of finance can deal with inflation overnight, notwithstanding those who, during the last campaign, said there was. I went through that for two years. I do believe that, in order to give confidence to the nation, the Minister of Finance has to be in control of his ministry, and not be forced to have a deputy minister who was not his choice, not be forced to go to the senior people in his department and tell them "Sorry, but I don't control the department," to the point that even in his own office, I am told, an executive assistant or an assistant had been imposed on him. This is the way to destroy a minister of finance, and I urge the government to act more sensibly in this regard.
The minister has not produced a budget, and that is a big mistake. When I brought down my budget last November I did so in very difficult circumstances. We were going into an election within months-there was no choice-and 1 put forward a budget which was seen by many people as being very dangerous politically for a government in power. The leader of the opposition at that time was talking about a stimulative deficit and what not, but 1 stood firm. Since then, good results have flowed from that budget. We have seen the unemployment figures falling from month to month to a point which is the lowest in many years. We are reaping the benefit of the two budgets which were brought down, one in April, 1978, and the other in November, 1978. But I must tell the Minister of Finance that there is a big time lag between new initiatives and the point at which they are felt in the economy.
It was a great mistake for the government not to bring down a budget earlier adjusting to the new circumstances because, since my last budget, inflation in the world economy has risen sharply and there has been a huge increase in the price of oil bought from the OPEC nations. This increase has been much larger than was anticipated by most observers.
I remember being at a meeting of the World Bank in Washington almost exactly a year ago, and talking to my colleagues there. The feeling was that the price of oil would probably increase by some 10 per cent or 15 per cent, perhaps by 20 per cent. It was much more than that, and there were wide fluctuations in the open market which pushed the price very high, in some cases 40 per cent higher. This meant a big change in the economic postures of all the nations concerned, and the effect has driven the United States economy into what some people regard as deep recession. In this situation the government hesitates and cannot make up its mind on anything.
I feel sorry for the poor Minister of Finance who has to prepare a budget this month while the Prime Minister and the minister of energy are unable to agree on the price of oil as they attempt to please either Mr. Davis or Mr. Lougheed. And the poor Minister of Finance has to write a budget not knowing what the compensation to offset the price of that
The Address-Mr. Chretien
commodity in eastern markets will be. We do not yet know what the policy will be. I recall I was involved in changing the pricing policy a year ago for the month of January, when I felt it was my duty to ask the government of Alberta and other producers of oil not to increase the price of oil by $1 because we were under too much pressure from inflation. I talked with them, and eventually they agreed. Of course, there were some rumblings. Of course, there were unfavourable editorials in some parts of Canada. A lot of people gave me hell, but I didn't give a damn because I felt that the job required someone who was a bit thick-skinned and could "take it". But I would point out that we are now in October.
I heard the Prime Minister on television the other day. He did not know what was going to happen. I guess he had a plan-he was to come out last Sunday with news of a big agreement after he and Mr. Lougheed had met in Montreal. The meeting failed. There can be no doubt that, when you are the Prime Minister of Canada, when you are the leader of a national government, you have to arbitrate the differences which arise in this land. There is no way in which consensus will be reached, because it is not in the nature of things that Mr. Lougheed should say he doesn't want a higher price for Albertan oil-after all, he has to get elected in Alberta-and it is not in the nature of things for Mr. Davis to say he does not want a lower price. Eventually, the leader of a national government has to take a stand in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Of course ministers opposite have not done this, so the poor Minister of Finance will have been operating under my 13-month old budget before he brings in another.
Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that these are the same people who were asking me last March when a budget would be brought down. As 1 say, we are already in October. They hope to give us a budget in a month or two, but the poor Minister of Finance has no clue about the probable cost to the treasury of maintaining the government's compensation program for oil imports. I hope he and his colleagues realize it is not possible to study these problems ad nauseam.
Mrs. Thatcher did not like the policies of the previous government in England. She moved, in the first week after her election, with a speech fron the throne. There was a budget within a month. I do not know whether it was a good one or a bad one, but she had some convictions and she showed them. Here we have the contrary.
For me it is rather a pleasure to be standing up here after so many months. Hon. members opposite have not found a way to change the policies we enunciated. They have fed for the last five months on my budget, which was supposed to be terrible. This is fun for me, but it is not fun for the nation. I know that there is a time lag of six months to a year before the effects of fiscal or budgetary measures are felt in the economy. Results do not happen overnight. On the night of a budget big pronouncements can be made, but it takes six months or a year before millions and millions are affected by the implementation of measures.

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. Chretien
By the time we have a new budget it will already be too late, because we have known since the month of April that the Americans are in a recession.There was a big debate among all the economists of the world as to whether the Americans were or were not going into a recession. Now it is evident that they were. Perhaps the Tories will be happy to see the Canadian economy go into a recession, but I would like to tell them that it is not necessary. Even if there is a recession in the United States now, for 27 months during the last recession in the United States we managed to maintain some growth in the Canadian economy. It was not enough, but there was some growth.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that there would be an average rate of growth of 5.5 per cent should he come into power. Yet right away we are told that it looks as though, next year, growth will be under 2 per cent. Hon. members opposite were going to reduce the deficit, but it will be $500 million higher. It would be better for hon. members opposite to tell the truth to the people.
During the campaign we said that there was no room to make promises. That was not easy. I wish we could have made promises. Perhaps we lost the election, but I am proud that, despite the fact we did not make many promises during the campaign, we got more votes than the present government, and we kept our respectability. I do not see much respectability in the present government.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to devote a few minutes to federal-provincial relations, a new field assigned to me by the Leader of the Opposition. I was pleased to accept, because I believe that we are now going through a very dangerous period in Canada. However, I am somewhat discouraged when I see the government believing that with appeasing policies, they will succeed in solving problems in the area of federal-provincial relations, especially when we Canadians in Quebec where most of us are Canadians know that in a few months we will have to vote in the referendum. In addition, we are being told by the Prime Minister of Canada that since he may have concluded an agreement on Loto Canada-it has not yet been ratified-that problem of relations between Quebec and the remainder of Canada will be solved. It is a big joke, Mr. Speaker. What was the matter with Loto Canada? It is an organization which the federal government had set up specifically to help the province of Quebec because of the Olympic Games deficit and which, therefore, is not a provincial responsibility. In order to make the first lottery possible in Canada, the Parliament of Canada had to introduce legislation and amend the Criminal Code to allow Jean Drapeau to hold his Olympic lottery, and as this scheme was to expire in the month of August following the Olympic Games, I personally introduced in the House a bill calling for the continuation of the scheme. And now the government is talking about turning it over to the provinces and trying to negotiate a return of the money from the provinces to the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I hear that one of the stumbling blocks which is delaying the signing of the agreement-I can hardly believe it-is the fact that the province of Quebec, although willing to take part in a lottery with the other provinces, does not want it to be called Loto Canada, because the word Canada is there. And the Progressive Conservative government agrees on that. It is Loto Canada. I am not ashamed to say it. I am a Canadian. I like the word "Canada", and most people in Quebec like it; it represents the obstacle to the settlement of, that little problem.
I could talk about the other so-called successes of the right hon. Prime Minister in the area of federal-provincial relations, namely, offshore rights. He made a nice gift to the provinces. He kept six or eight jurisdictions for the federal government. Furthermore, it will be necessary to amend the constitution. In another case either they give or they do not. And why have that debate which is going to create all kinds of controversies while governments concerned, besides the federal government, found a formula which avoided the conflict of jurisdictions, and which was found to be very favourable by the provinces? Even today, the Conservative premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Hatfield, says he is not convinced that the action taken by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada is really in the interest of the maritimes, because even if they have oil revenues they are going to lose on equalization payments. So as the saying goes, they will have changed "four quarters for a dollar". They may not have gained anything. But in the meantime there are oil companies that want to search for oil at this point in that area, and they find themselves in the situation where one holds a provincial licence, while another holds a federal licence for the same area. There will be no oil finds there for quite some time because of that hassle. And if they are in doubt because of a constitutional amendment we will have to go to London and have the agreement of all provinces because the Prime Minister stated he would never amend the constitution without agreement from all provinces. So that situation will prevail for months. People in Newfoundland will believe they got a gift, but the Prime Minister will be unable to deliver.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to come back on this. First I would extend my best wishes to the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis). This is a very difficult task, and I know he is committed to devoting all his energy and talent. So I wish him good luck. However, as I said on the oil situation, that kind of problem will never be solved through some kind of meeting where everyone is in agreement. This is impossible by the very nature of things. If you are the mayor of a community and have a problem, you blame the provincial government. If you are a provincial premier and have a problem, you blame the federal government. But we up here, Mr. Speaker, we cannot blame the Queen of England. Occasionally we blame the Americans, when we have a chance. All that is in the nature of things. So I wish him good luck, but at some point he will have to face the
October 12, 1979

facts and say, "We are the government, and must take a decision in the interest of all Canadians".
I should like to deal for a few minutes with one of the attitudes of the party in power which concerns me greatly. We held a debate in this House before the election on the bill we had introduced dealing with referendums: the bill gave the federal government the power to hold referendums. Both the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats supported the measure, the Conservatives saying, "We do not want the bill in that form but will accept a referendum on the Quebec issue". Today, the Prime Minister claims that by withdrawing his own plan for a referendum, he has done what was needed to incite Quebeckers to remain Canadians. Come on! That is sheer naivete. What is the number one priority of the Parti Quebecois program? What is it? To separate Quebec from Canada. They are trying to find some formula or other, just the way they did in the last election, to trick the voters. They got themselves elected then by saying, "Now, we will give you good government/' Then, they spent the last three and a half years talking only about separation and getting ready for it. Now they are free. We set them free and enabled them to put the question they want to ask. They want a mandate to negotiate something or other. Only after the election will Mr. Levesque tell us exactly what that mandate is. What worries me is that 1 have heard several hon. members opposite say that they have a plan. That plan, believe it or not, is that if the question is not the right one, they will come in at the last minute with a bill. That will be provocation of the worst kind! For months they will have worn the mask of the jolly good fellow, of the pleasant guy. Then, when there is maximum tension in Quebec, without notice, without warning, they will club them with a federal referendum. Why not be honest with the people of Quebec? If Mr. Levesque asks an honest question, there will be no problem.


An hon. Member:: He will be beaten.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He will be beaten. But the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. LaSalle) knows full well that he will not ask an honest question. He knows that and I am happy to hear him say so.
But get ready, because there are millions of citizens in Quebec who want to stay in Canada. There are some 680,000 to 700,000 Anglophones there. I met a few in Montreal recently who were telling me that they felt totally abandoned, that they at least had the hope that the Government of Canada would assume its responsibility to protect them in this debate, where they feel like floating in a nutshell over a stormy sea, but that now, in an attempt to smooth things over, they were being totally neglected. There is nothing wrong with having a bill here, at the federal level, which, if Mr. Levesque's question is honest, can be left dormant, but to come at the last minute, underhandedly, that is dishonest towards the people of Quebec.
The Address-Mr Cameron


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is only one thing that matters: to be honest with the public. That is all I ask of the government.


Mr. Don Cameron (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this august House. First I should like to congratulate Your Honour on your appointment to position of Speaker. It is a high office, and it goes without saying that I will abide by Mr. Speaker's rulings. I am sorry the last speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), has left so soon because I have a message for him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Who, me?


An hon. Member:: He is right here.


Donald Niel (Don) Cameron: He spoke about our Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). He cautioned him about the rug being pulled out from under him. I want to assure the House that there is no one in Canada who would know better than the man who was the minister of finance in the last government. He has more experience than anyone.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Merci.


Donald Niel (Don) Cameron: I should like to speak for a moment about the Speech from the Throne. We have heard comments indicating that it was not much of a speech, that there was nothing in it. I was delighted with it. It was a positive speech. It emphasized what we on this side said during the election campaign. Throughout my remarks I will bring that out.
Canadians today are looking for credibility. In short that is what defeated the last government, the lack of credibility. Canadians are looking to a government which will set policies that will be carried on for some time in the future, so that industrialists and entrepreneurs can make their plans and go ahead with them. That will be a change from what they have had in the past.
The riding of Kamloops-Shuswap was named for its two beautiful lakes. I should like to thank personally the voters of that constituency for choosing me to be their representative here and for the confidence they have placed in me, confidence which I do not take lightly. Kamloops is the regional centre of the south central part of British Columbia. The Trans-Canada highway and the Yellowknife highway pass through it. Also it is a divisional point on both the CN and CP railways. It has a large shopping centre or district upon which 130,000 people depend. Approximately 60,000 people live in the town of Kamloops itself. Salmon Arm is a small town on the banks of Shuswap Lake. It is a beautiful spot, it is a beautiful lake. The active industries in that part of the country are forestry, mining, agriculture, ranching, tourism, and some light industry. I should like to spend most of my time talking about these industries.

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. Cameron
There are three producing mines in this area. In the case of two mines they export their concentrate, and in the case of the third one it is smelted down and they export approximately an 1,100-pound ingot. The primary metal is copper. There is molly, as it is known in the industry, or molybdenum, with something more than trace elements of gold and silver in the area. Since May 22, which is an interesting date to note, one new mine has started. At present they are stripping overburden, pouring concrete, erecting steel, and putting up a new concentrater. The new mine is bigger than any two of the three operating at the moment. Also heavy equipment is moving into the area to begin construction of another new mine which will be larger than all the others put together. This shows the confidence industrialists have in the present government. They have known of this ore for several years. It has sat in the ground, it has never been developed. Studies have been done on it and there have been drilling reports which have sat there for years. Since May 22 the industrialists have confidence in the government because they know its policies, and they are going ahead.
I should like to refer to a newspaper clipping which I received today from the area. It reads as follows:
Anderson, formerly Afton Mines mine manager, estimates that full development by all four copper mining companies would mean a combined annual payroll of $56 million for 2,600 persons employed in the mining industry in the Highland Valley by 1982.
Also I should like to refer to some specifics respecting what these mines produce. The milling capacity of Afton Mines Limited is 8,500 tons of ore per day. Its annual production is just over 57 million pounds of copper. Also it produces just under 58,000 ounces of gold and 290,087 ounces of silver. In the case of Bethlehem Copper, its milling capacity is 20,000 tons per day. Its annual production is 47,761,191 pounds of copper and just under 500,000 pounds of molybdenum.
In the case of Lornex, its mining capacity is 48,100 tons per day. Its annual production is 135,422,000 pounds of copper and 3,985,000 pounds of molybdenum. Perhaps these figures do not seem like very much, but in the industry what that adds up to is quite substantial and relieves some of our balance of payments.
British Columbia produces over $450 million worth of the copper which is sold on the export market per year. It produces over $45 million worth of gold a year. It produces just under 30 million pounds of molybdenum which is worth over $160 million a year. This has a very good effect on our balance of payments.
In this country we have so much in the way of resources, in greater quantities than in almost any other country in the world. We have the skills and the know-how to develop and to extract those resources, whether they be timber or minerals. One of our problems is that most people, and I say "most", cannot see the trees for the forest. It is to be hoped, now that we have a change in government and that more positive, long-range plans are in effect for the industrialists, that we will have greater participation by them in these industries.

The forestry industry in our area is a primary economic producer. We have ten large sawmills and one pulp mill employing a force of about 9,300 people. This industry produces an export commodity that we ship in great quantities, helping to relieve our balance of payments.
We also have tourism in the area. It is a great hunting, fishing, skiing, and sports area. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) is not here as he would be interested in this. A couple of years ago he was out in our area and skied at a place called Todd Mountain. Two entrepreneurs have taken over this area and spent $1.5 million improving it this year. They started out in a business-like manner. They had Snow Engineering carry out their study, the same people who designed the Aspen, Colorado development. They found that we have greater potential on Todd Mountain than in Aspen, Colorado.
These people have located and marked 21 ski runs on the mountain. I am pleased to say that the mountain will not be denuded of its trees. The course will be cut down the mountain with trees left between the different runs. There will be slopes for beginners, for the average person, and for the expert. They are also planning to build a lodge at the foot of the ski lifts to accommodate people while in the area. They have installed a third lift in there this year. I had the privilege of driving over the new ski run with them. They have cleared an area some 200 feet in width which is tapered on both sides and curves down the mountain. This is an excellent area. It has been raked free of boulders by hand, and sown in grass, so that with three, four or six inches of snow people will be able to use the runs.
That is the kind of thing I want to see developed. I am not interested in handout projects for the riding. Much more is to be gained through private enterprise, with government-set stable conditions so that entrepreneurs can go ahead and make their plans. Let us put private industry to work, as I am sure this will pay great returns.
I am sorry the hon. member for Saint-Maurice is not here as he had some direction in respect of what I wish to talk about now. There is a railway relocation problem in the riding of Kamloops-Shuswap. This is a problem that goes back a number of years to when the then minister of transport, Mr. Lang, decided there should be a rail relocation study. Certainly in respect of railway relocations Kamploops and Regina are the two worst cities in the country.
The former government said we should go ahead and conduct a study. The former minister said to spend up to $200,000 with the government paying half and the area paying half. That was fine, and we went ahead with the study. As it was nearing completion we experienced one of the customary restraint programs, and there was no more money. Within a month or so the former government made another promise, saying there would be money and we should complete the study. The former minister said that we were so near to completion and that this was such valuable information we should go ahead and the money would be forthcoming. We went ahead, completed the study and turned the study over to
October 12, 1979

the government. Again we experienced a restraint program, and again no money was forthcoming. To this date that small city of Kamloops is stuck with that cost of $100,000, the federal government's share of the bill which the former government left hanging. Surely that is a poor way to establish any kind of co-operation or to get negotiations going. This is a very sad situation.
Let me make a few remarks about a prison that was to be established in the area. This was first suggested some four or five years ago. A former solicitor general came out and announced that the government was going to build a prison in the Kamloops area. There is nothing else in the world that we need like we need a prison. We were told to pick out a site, and a site was chosen. The government purchased 38 acres up on the west hill just at the edge of Kamloops. They could have chosen a site a lot further out and still been within the city boundaries. In any event, the government bought this 38-acre site for $160,000. It did not seem to make any difference that there was a crude oil pipeline running through the area. Nor did it matter that there was a natural gas pipeline running through the same area along with a hydro line. We were told this was no problem and the government would have them moved. The federal government moved them and paid another $200,000.
I would like to know who owned that land. I did not bother to find out, but I could pretty well tell you who it was. We were told many times during the election campaign that the prison was to be built there. 1 am not all that enamoured with a prison in the area; 1 could live with it, or do without it, but certainly it should not be that close to the town. 1 am sure the people who made the decision in years gone by to establish the prison a number of miles outside New Westminster have now had after-thoughts. It is now located within city boundaries, and the people do not like it. There are many better places where a prison could be located than at that spot in Kamloops.
Another matter I should like to refer to, Mr. Speaker, relates to the airport at Kamloops. We have our problems at the airport. Kamloops is situated in the bottom of the river valley in that area. We have a pulp mill on one side of the airport and a refinery on the other. We do experience some air inversion in winter, and quite often we have over-flights. I think there were 29 in the month of December last year.
This matter was judiciously brought up during the last election campaign. We were told we were going to get some improvements to our airport almost immediately. We were given to understand the improvements would be started even before the vote. The amount involved started at $1.1 million, increased to $2 million, then to $2.5 million, and finally $2.95 was settled on. We heard other figures up to $5.5 million and $6 million. Needless to say, nothing has been done. The money was set aside in the budget but, as a previous member, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), has said, what the government failed to do was go to Treasury Board and obtain approval.
Those are some of the facts I picked up when I took over in the area. Another situation that was brought to my attention
The Address-Mr. Cameron
relates to the Thompson River system. This system includes the two lakes for which the riding is named. It also includes the two Thompson rivers. The North Thompson flows generally from the area of Jasper, and joins the South Thompson at Kamloops. The South Thompson flows from Shuswap Lake. The river then flows down to Lytton where it joins the Fraser.
Studies have been done on the Thompson River system for as long as we have had studies, and 1 think we could produce almost any type of study you would care to see. The thing that the people of my riding are concerned about is the condition of the water in the Thompson and Fraser rivers all the way down to the coast.
In B.C. most cities are unable to get water by drilling. They pump their water out of the rivers. At one time it was good drinking water, but today most of the towns along the Shuswap, Kamloops, and most of the towns down along the Thompson and Fraser system, dump their sewage into it. It was announced during the election that we would have a $60,000 pre-planning study done on the problem. We are in the throes of receiving that report now, and if there is one point I would like to make today emphatically it is that we do not need any more studies on the Thompson River. In the first place, we did not need studies to tell us not to dump sewage into the rivers, we needed action.
That river system is also the run for the famous Pacific sockeye salmon. They come up the Fraser River into the Thompson River, into the Shuswap and into the Adams River and Adams Lake. It is one of the largest sockeye spawning runs in the world. In fact there is a sign along the run that advertises the one section of the run as the world's richest 300 acres. So, not only are the citizens of the area in danger, but the salmon are facing the danger of being wiped out.
I would like to speak for a moment about the Yellowhead highway system. I was pleased when the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said that he was interested in having some of that highway system upgraded. The part I am interested in runs from Tete Jaune Cache down through Kamloops, on down to Merritt and over the whole Flope-Princeton highway. Generally speaking, it is a good highway, but there is a section from Kamloops north for some 40 miles to Barriere, and in particular a 15-mile section within the boundaries of Kamloops, which is now approaching an unstable condition at speed levels of 30 miles per hour. This is from the Pacific Rim highway study. The traffic on that road is not ordinary traffic. The grades on that highway for truckers going to and from the prairies are the best we have through British Columbia. There is only one bad hill to pull in the whole system. Consequently all the heavy freight trucks use it, to say nothing of the log trucks, approximately 100 of them a day, and 1 would venture as many chip trucks in a 24 hour period. These trucks carry in the vicinity of 80,000 to 90,000 pound loads or, in other words, 40 to 45 tons. To have loads like that travelling a highway which is approaching an unstable condition at speed levels of 30 miles an hour is hardly a situation we appreciate.

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. Cameron
I would like to say a few words now about energy, and in particular Petro-Canada. We have heard on several occasions from both parties opposite about Petro-Canada. It is only right that they should explain their side of the coin, but there are two sides to every coin. I would like to take a moment to run over our side now.
If my memory serves me correctly, and I believe that it does, Petro-Canada was originally set up when we had a minority government. In fact only yesterday they were talking about a paternity suit over it, and maybe there will be a divorce later and an alimony suit later. When PetroCan was set up with the use of taxpayer's money in the amount of approximately $1 billion, I can remember reading the reports each year in Hansard before I came to the House, and the government of the day would seem to come at budget time for $200 million to $250 million for running expenses. That was fine. Then they started acquiring some properties. The first thing that was done was that Petro-Canada began buying up shares in pipeline companies or oil companies, shares which you and I or some senior citizen might well have had and from which they could get a small dividend, while some portion of it flowed to the treasury. However, we do not have that today. The company bought up the shares and they are going into a conglomerate. The NDP are always talking about multinationals and conglomerates. This company is approaching that size.
The NDP also talk about having a window on the oil industry in order to know what is going on. From what I hear from the NDP and the Liberal party, when they get down to have a look in that window they must have their rose-coloured glasses on. I have not heard any reports about the oil Petro-Canada is producing. The purchase of Pacific Petroleums has not produced one drop of oil for Canada, and it is the same with the other oil company which was purchased. Petro-Canada has not produced any oil for Canada in order that it may have shares in the pipeline, shares away from which the government of the day pushed some poor little senior citizen. That has not helped Canada.
I am interested to hear from the NDP spokesman on what that party's policy is on uranium. During the election they said that there would be no mining of uranium in British Columbia.
I guess the party has taken a different position in Saskatchewan, but that is their problem. Their leader went across the country on what he called a crusade, but I noticed that he was always speaking to the committed, the unions and so on, saying that Petro-Canada must be kept. It is interesting to note that one of the subsidiaries of Petro-Canada is busy in B.C. exploring for uranium in the area of Peachland, Penticton, and up toward Merritt. Apparently they are also interested in buying claims in the Adams Plateau. I am sure that we over here would all like to know just what their position is on that matter.
There is another angle to Petro-Canada with which I am not happy. No Canadian would object to the taxpayers' money being spent to find oil in the north or on the heavy oil in the sands on the Saskatchewan-Alberta border, nor do they particularly object to the importing of oil from other countries.

But I am sure they do object to their money being spent through Petro-Canada on drilling for oil in Pakistan, off the Norwegian coast, or in China. It will not produce one drop of oil for Canada. Those are some of the things on the other side of the coin, and the things which the parties opposite missed when they were looking through the window on the energy industry.
I have emphasized some of the characteristics of the Kamloops area, the beautiful climate and the once beautiful farming country. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) about the agricultural lands, particularly the better classes of soil which are fast disappearing. Kamloops is a prime example. We once had on the north shore of the Thompson a beautiful flat that was all in orchards producing beautiful crops. But today there is only one small orchard of some 15 or 20 acres left. The whole area is now housing. I certainly think that the hon. member's remarks were to the point and worth considering, and I agree with him.
Lastly, I would like to say that my riding of Kamloops-Shuswap is proud to be part of this great Canada, this Canada from sea to sea, and we certainly believe that it should and will stay as one country.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from special and standing committees?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


STANDING COMMITTEES
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose standing and standing joint committees of the House, notwithstanding Standing Order 65(1), if the House gives its consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House consents to receive this committee report at this time. The House, I am sure, will want to know that it is in the usual form. As we know, it is a lengthy report containing the names of all members on all of the standing committees. Does the House insist that the entire report be read at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.
October 12, 1979


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That the report of the committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing and standing joint committees of this House be concurred in notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 65(1).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the list will appear in Hansard at this point even though the minister does not read out all those names.


Mr. Speaker:: The House can be assured that upon passage of this motion the report will be printed as it has been tabled and as though it had been read.
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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor s Note: The report above referred to is as follows;]
Your committee recommends that the standing committees of this House be composed of the following members:
	No. 1 Agriculture Messrs.
Elzinga	Whelan
Greenaway	Lessard
Hamilton (Swift Current-	Bockstael
Maple Creek)	Daudlin
Hargrave	Dion
King	Lapierre
Korchinski	Leduc
MacDonald (Cardigan)	Ostiguy
McKnight	Tardif
McKinley	Tessier
Mitges	Corbin
Murta	Benjamin
Neil	Nystrom
Patterson	Peters
Schellenberger	Lambert
Taylor (Bow River) Whittaker	(Bellechasse)-31
Standing Committees
Lane	Rose
Reimer	Waddell-19
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs and National Defence
Messrs.
Binks
Cooper
Crouse
Darling
Fennell
Forrestall
Fretz
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Higson McCuish McKenzie Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)
Reimer
Ritchie (Dauphin)
Roche
Finance,
Clarke
Corbett
Gilchrist
Gustafson
Kilgour
Lambert (Edmonton West) Ritchie (Dauphin)
Ritchie (York East) Richardson (Beaches) Thomson McDermid
Wenman
Buchanan
Hopkins
Prud'homme
Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi)
Duclos
Dupras
Lachance
MacEachen
Lapointe
MacLaren
Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Blackburn Jewett (Miss)
Sargeant-30
[Stage Direction]
: and Economic Affairs Messrs.
Gray
Evans
Johnston
Andras
Chretien
Kaplan
Lumley
Jewett (Miss)
Rae
Roy (Beauce)-21
[Stage Direction]
Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts
Messrs.
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries and Forestry
Cook	Wenman		
Friesen	Fleming		Messrs.
Graham	Sauve (Mrs.)		
Hawkes	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Brisco	NickersonMcMillan	De Bane	Darling	RompkeyScott (Hamilton-	Herbert	Gass	Baker (Gander-Wentworth)	Joyal	Haliburton	Twillingate)Beattie	Roy (Laval)	Crouse	Bujold
October 12, 1979
Standing Committees
MacDonald (Cardigan)	Cyr
Munro (Esquimalt-	LeBlanc
Saanich)	Rooney
Taylor (Cowichan-	Breau
Malahat-The Islands)	Miller
Siddon	Skelly
Reid (St. Catharines)	Allard-21 No. 6
Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Messrs.	
Bradley	Begin (Miss)
Darling	LeBlanc
Dinsdale	Buchanan
Fish	Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hawkes	Munro (Hamilton East)
Halliday	Lalonde
Kushner	Cousineau
Schellenberger	Knowles
Richardson (Beaches)	Ogle
Yewchuk Fennell	Gauthier (Roberval)-2 No. 7
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Messrs.	
Holmes	Stewart
Nickerson	Allmand
Oberle	Penner
Fraleigh	Watson
Greenaway	Chretien
Hawkes	Portelance
McCuish	Corbin
Taylor (Bow River)	Veillette
Taylor (Cowichan-	Ittinuar
Malahat-The Islands)	Murphy-19 No. 8
National Resources and Public Works Messrs.	
Andre	Lalonde
Cameron	Caccia
Campbell (Sarnia)	Roy (Laval)
McKinley	McRae
Reimer	Foster
Taylor (Bow River)	LeBlanc
Jarvis (Willowdalc)	Phillips
Neil	Fulton
Thomson	Symcs
Siddon McMillan	Caouettc-21 No. 9 Justice and Legal Affairs Messrs.
Crosby	Blais
Halliday	MacGuigan
Kilgour	Allmand
Speyer	Daudlin
Woolliams	McLellan
Cooper	Marceau
Baldwin	Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.
Beattie	Faour
Ferguson Vankoughnct	Robinson (Burnaby)-1 No. 10 Labour, Manpower and Immigration Messrs.
Binks	Fox
Halliday	Olivier
Hawkes	Appolloni (Mrs.)
Kushner	Breau
McCrossan	Dupont
Ritchie (Dauphin)	Savard
Wightman	Nicholson (Miss)
Dick	Mitchell (Mrs.)
Lane McLean	Rodriguez-19
[Stage Direction]
Regional Development
Messrs.
Darling	De Banc
Domm	Breau
Ferguson	Bussieres
Gass	Foster
Janelle	Harquail
Brisco	Lessard
Cooper	MacLellan
MacDonald (Cardigan)	Hogan
McMillan	Peters-19
Nowlan	

October 12, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
No. 12	Mayer	GendronTransport and Communications	Nickerson	ParentNylander	YanakisMessrs.	Vankoughnet	SavardGustafson	JohnstonForrestall	Lumley	Greenaway	KnowlesGass	Dionne	Hawkes	Nystrom-19Graham	(Northumberland-Miramichi)	Scott (Victoria Haliburton)	Jelinek	Deniger	McDermid	Campbell (LaSalle)	Reid (St. Catharines)	Turner	No. 16Ritchie (Dauphin)	Roy (Laval)	Privileges and ElectionsTaylor (Bow River)	Harquail	Towers	Benjamin	Messrs.Whittaker	Waddell-19	Domm	BlakerFraleigh	DuquetNo. 13	Patterson	PinardVeterans Affairs	Scott (Hamilton-	HopkinsMessrs.	Wentworth) Dick	JohnstonHalliday	ReidBeattie	Hopkins	Hawkes	RossiGass	Parent	Elzinga	BenjaminHamilton (Swift Current-	Robinson	Lambert (Edmonton West)	Peters- 19Maple Creek)	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Friesen	McKenzie	Turner	McMillan	Herbert	Mitges	Leduc	No. 17 Public AccountsTaylor (Bow River)	Bockstael	Whittaker	Knowles	Fraleigh Taylor (Cowichan-Malahat-	Peters-19	Messrs.The Islands)	Cameron	DenigerClarke	DesmaraisNo. 14	Gamble	DuprasHawkes Ritchie (York East)	Herbert LamontagneMiscellaneous Estimates	Messrs.	Fennell	JoyalHalliday	JohnstonNicholson (Miss)	McDermid	de JongBosley Coates	Joyal Johnston	Taylor (Bow River) Wakim	Rae-19Andre	Kaplan	McCrossan	Lumley	Towers	Gray	No. 18Gamble	Chretien	Procedure and OrganizationHaliburton	Miller	Hawkes	Orlikow-19	Messrs.Lambert (Edmonton West)	No. 15	Domm	LewisMiscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders	Friesen	De BaneMunro	PinardMessrs.	Baldwin	ReidBinks	Duquet	Malone	MacEachenKushner	Campbell (LaSalle)	Fraleigh	Knowles-12
October 12, 1979
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Management and Members' Services Messrs.
Wakim	Robinson (Burnaby)-12
Crosby
And that the following Members be named to assist Mr. Speaker and to act as Members of this House on the following Joint Committees.
Domm
Ellis
Halliday
Lambert (Edmonton West)
Nowlan
Coates
Clarke
Comtois Daudlin De Bane Duquet Rose
Lambert (Bellechasse)-13
[Stage Direction]
Northern Pipelines
Messrs.
Crosby	Nickerson
Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)	de Corneille
Oberle	Foster
Malone	Chretien
Neil	Corriveau
Taylor (Cowichan-	Symes-12
Malahat-The Islands)
Your committee further recommends that the Members to serve on the Standing Joint Committees of the House be as follows:
Printing
Messrs.
Mitges
Binks
Bradley
Ellis
Gurbin
Clarke
McLean
McCuish
Elzinga
Hawkes
Lambert (Edmonton West)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Killens (Mrs.)
Daudlin
Loiselle
Parent
Pelletier
Reid
Turner
Ethier
de Jong
Mitchell (Mrs.)-22
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
Library of Parliament
Messrs.
Mitges
Binks
Bradley
Ellis
Gurbin
Kushner
McLean
McCuish
Elzinga
Hawkes
Lambert (Edmonton West)
Bussieres
Daudlin
De Bane
Lachance
Lapointe
Nicholson (Miss)
McCauley
Evans
Blaikie
Jewett (Miss)-21
Restaurant of Parliament
Messrs.
Clarke
Darling
Mitges
Elzinga
Halliday
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Crouse
Haliburton
McLean
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Prud'homme
Roy (Laval)
Stollery
MacLellan
Lefebvre
Turner
Murphy
Peters- 19
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
And your committee also recommends that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the formation of the Joint Committees on Printing, the Library of Parliament, Regulations and other Statutory Instruments and the direction of the Parliamentary Restaurant and that the members to serve on each of the said committees on the part of this House will be as contained in this report.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the House has now struck the standing and standing joint committees of the House of Commons, one of the purposes of which is to deal with the estimates. There are estimates on the table. Now that we have struck the committees, I think it would be appropriate if we made the work of the committees worthwhile. With that in mind I wonder if I have the consent of the House to revert to motions?
Baldwin
McKinley
Wightman
Hawkes
Nickerson
Messrs.
Herbert
Daudlin
Joyal
Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The House could revert to motions at this time only with unanimous consent. I understand there is not unanimous consent according to the expression I have just heard. There is therefore no alternative but to revert to orders of the

October 12, 1979

day, which is the resumption of the debate on the address in reply to the Speech of the Throne.


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. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to feel a little like a jumping jack, getting up and down. If the other business has been concluded I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all the members here because it is a genuine honour to give my first address in this chamber. It is a chamber with a great deal of history. Anyone coming here feels that history and cannot help but be honoured by the process that brought him. In my case I want to thank the voters of Vancouver Centre for the landslide victory they gave me. I had 94 more votes than I really needed to be elected and I appreciate every one of them. I want to assure all the voters of Vancouver Centre, even the 65 per cent who voted against me, that I am going to do my best for them in this chamber.
I understand it is traditional to speak about one's riding at this time and tell everyone what a fine place it is. As a former mayor of Vancouver I certainly know the riding well. I love it and I enjoy speaking about it. I see the former mayor of Toronto sitting opposite as a minister of the government, and I am sure he shares these feelings.
I have found, however, that it is not a good idea to tell people of all the virtues of Vancouver. When we do that we find that easterners somehow descend on it. We refer to anybody beyond the Rocky Mountains as easterners, of course. Those from Alberta are mid-easterners, and I think the House is beginning to understand, as is the country, why we refer to them that way. People who live beyond Alberta are referred to as far easterners. When all these people find out the truth about our city, they flock to it. They crowd our beautiful, unpolluted sandy beaches, and Stanley Park which is partly in my riding. They jam the ski slopes just 15 minutes away from my riding which, unfortunately, are represented by two members on the other side, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). They will be ably represented, I am sure. In any case, Mr. Speaker, visitors come flocking. The virtues of Vancouver attract them too well, so the best thing is to say nothing. For that reason I will say no more about it tonight.
I should like to speak about a part of my riding that is of great national importance, and that is the port of Vancouver. I see the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) who represents Vancouver South, and other members who represent parts of greater Vancouver, in the House, and I am sure they will agree, as would members from the prairies and other parts of Canada, that the port of
The Address-Mr. Phillips
Vancouver is a national institution of great importance to us all. During the time I was mayor of the city, and since, I have wanted to see changes in the administration of the port. Unfortunately, it has been a long distance administration over the years, coming under the authority of the National Harbours Board in Ottawa. That is simply not the best type of administration for a local port which should have more local input and more local autonomy. There is a very fine port manager, but the port needs to have more control over its own affairs in the area, and this is one of the interests I propose to pursue in this House.
I know bills have been brought before the House in earlier days which would give a great deal of local control to the port of Vancouver, but they have not been passed. I hope that members from the other parties will join with those who represent the greater Vancouver area in trying to bring about this important and necessary change at the port of Vancouver for the benefit of the city of Vancouver and for the benefit of all Canadians. We feel saddened when we see the port of Seattle taking away some of our container business because our port has lagged behind in development. We feel we can do better. In my judgment this is a non-partisan issue and one that I would like to pursue with the other parties in this House.
I believe there are many occasions in this House when members can pursue issues in a non-partisan fashion while representing regional interests. I should like to do more of that myself as it fits in with my municipal background.
I believe we should be providing this type of constructive opposition. Our leader has commented many times that our role is to provide such constructive opposition-criticizing when there are things to criticize, and certainly the government has given us many such occasions so far, and there will be others-but offering constructive suggestions and positive proposals from the position of opposition.
The Liberal opposition has been organized in the form of a number of caucus committees. It is my great pleasure to be chairman of the committee on resources and small businesses. The resources involved, mining and forestry, are of great importance to British Columbia and western Canada. The small business aspect fits in very well with my personal background in business, small business and finance. I am delighted to represent those areas in the opposition and look forward to participating in the debates.
The hon. member who spoke ahead of me referred to mining and forestry in Kamloops, the area he represents, and said that both industries are strong. It is true that both are doing well. In the case of mining, however, stable taxation policies are needed so that those involved in it know where they stand and do not have surprises sprung upon them.
The forestry industry is also in good shape. It is true that the lower Canadian dollar has helped it a good deal, as has the task force established by the previous government. There is a great need for further reforestation programs, Mr. Speaker, if this country is not to run out of timber by the end of this century, and plans should be laid for them. You cannot suddenly just plant 100-foot trees. This is an area in which I

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. Phillips
want to see the government take further action. There was considerable improvement as a result of the task force initiated by the previous federal government. Joint federal-provincial programs are catching up part of that backlog, but more needs to be done.
I want to talk about small business for a moment. Small business is growing and flourishing in Canada. What many of us forget is that two-thirds of the job growth in the last five years has come from small business. Small business has been doing well. There has been quite an upsurge in the feeling of entrepreneurship among young people in their late twenties and early thirties. What you are seeing is the "do your own thing" generation reaching an age where they want to do their own thing, but they also want to earn a good living doing it. There is no better way of doing your own thing and earning a good living while doing it, than being your own boss and in your own small business.
1 am delighted to see people taking a greater interest in running their own businesses. There is a shortage of entrepreneurship in this country, but this is improving. There is a great interest in the colleges and community colleges in courses designed to help people run their own businesses. We must encourage that and ensure that sort of thing is easier for people to do. There is no greater freedom, creativity, pure fun as well as opportunity than one can find in running one's own business. However, it is tough to get started.
About 60 per cent of small businesses fail in their first try. Small businessmen starting something usually fail, and that is a great pain. Instead of giving government handouts to people in order to encourage them to go into business, because that type of thing is almost impossible to administer at the very small business level, we can ease that pain to some extent. We can do this by looking at better capital loss right-offs for small businessmen initiating their own small businesses-starting their own businesses and failing. That is part of the process. A lot of us have scars to show that we have started some businesses and failed. If we can ease that pain, we could get many more people started in the system at relatively low cost to the treasury.
I have seen proposals for a $5,000 tax credit for investment in small businesses. I have seen proposals from the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and others. We on this side concur with that idea. The former prime minister suggested in the last election campaign a $5,000 tax credit for people investing in their own businesses, for example by buying shares in their own businesses for employees. This is easily extendible to people starting in a new business of their own, and is a worth-while idea for the government to pursue.
The Federal Business Development Bank has been an instrument of great benefit to small business people. It has not made money because its mandate is not to make money. It has broken even, which is what it should do. It has taken on high risk loans, made money available to small businessmen, and

enabled them to grow. It has been one of the primary sources of financing for small business.
I hear disturbing rumours that people want to cut back on this program. There is talk of privatizing part of it, of restricting it and making it into a much more profit-making organization. I suggest all this would destroy the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank, and 1 do not want to see that happen. We on this side will fight any threat to restrict, cut back, shrink or privatize the Federal Business Development Bank. This is not because we are against privatization. We are not against privatization per se. We believe that the whole process of looking at government Crown corporations should be a selective one. We should look at corporations that have either been acquired or developed by the government and ask, are these still serving a function for the government, or are they not, and if they are not, would they be better sold to private enterprise in some way? We should look at this question selectively and not dogmatically. In that way I think we will find there are some cases.
The former government had intentions to return to private investors some of the companies that it owned. It bought Canadair, and a good thing it did too. Canadair was a very successful investment. It saved many jobs in Canada and it developed a viable industry. But there may come an occasion when it is sensible and when an appropriate buyer is available when that can be turned back to private industry. We have no objection to examining those sorts of things on their merits, and I think they should be examined.
There is one company we have examined on its merits and that is Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada should not be privatized. Privatizing that company is all wrong, and we oppose it in any form.
Petro-Canada has been a huge success. As the hon. member from the opposition who spoke before me mentioned, about $1 billion in taxpayers' money has been invested in Petro-Canada. True. That investment is now worth approximately $2 billion to $3 billion. Petro-Canada has been a fine investment and a fine use of taxpayers' money. In only four years it has grown to be the largest Canadian oil company operating in Canada. This company has taken high risks in the Arctic, offshore Labrador and so on. It has done very well. It has produced new fields of oil and it has helped solve some of our energy problems. It has been incredibly successful, no matter how you look at it. This company has even helped small business, Mr. Speaker.
Petro-Canada has come to the rescue of many independent retailers, particularly in the province of Quebec, who are being squeezed out of business by the large multinationals. It has come to the rescue and helped many independent oil producers in the province of Alberta who could not afford to participate in drilling syndicates under normal circumstances but who were pulled together by Petro-Canada, and assisted. It would be a tragedy to privatize Petro-Canada. It has been too good, and it is needed under government ownership.
The previous speaker mentioned that Petro-Canada had been started by the minority government. This is not so. The
October 12, 1979

bill was initiated, and royal assent was given under the majority government in late 1974, early 1975. The company was created by a majority Liberal government, expanded by a majority Liberal government to where it is now, and it has been one of the most successful undertakings of the previous Liberal majority government of the last five years.
I want to talk a little bit about the proposals to privatize Petro-Canada. There have been several proposals, and we are not sure where the government stands, whether it is to privatize part of it, all of it, to cut it up, keep the unprofitable parts for some obscure reason and sell off the good parts that turn a profit. All these sorts of plans have been heard and the question is now in the hands of a committee which, 1 understand, reports next week. One of the suggestions that I think will come out of this is to what we call "BCRIC" it.
Those of us who come from British Columbia know what "BCR1C" means. It refers to the British Columbia Resources Investment Company. This company was a corporation owned by the provincial government containing mainly forest products companies, some minority shareholdings, Westcoast Transmission, some oil and gas rights, and so on. It was a profitable, mature package, and it was turned over to individuals in the province of British Columbia by the provincial government in two ways. First, free shares were given to each resident of British Columbia, even to newly born babies; then each individual was given the right to buy up to approximately $30,000 of the stock additionally. This type of venture has been a tremendous success in British Columbia, and 1 personally applaud this whole approach. It was a success in two ways.
The investors poured in money far in excess of what people had expected. Almost $500 million came in when about $100 million was expected. Eighty-seven per cent of the citizens took advantage of their free shares. More than that, it has been a dramatic educational experience for residents of British Columbia. Every school child owns shares in BCRIC. They talk about it in the classrooms and thousands of citizens have, for the first time, become shareholders and investors in a viable corporation, namely, BCRIC. It has been an outstanding success.
This is a success that could be applied at the national level, but for PetroCan it is all wrong. For Petro-Canada this whole idea makes no sense, for a couple of reasons. Once a company is a shareholder company, it is a different kind of company. The interests of shareholders must be thought about and concern over potential dividends become important. A company is much more cautious once it becomes a shareholder company. It cannot afford to take the kinds of risks that this government-owned company has taken. It simply cannot do that. It requires government clout behind it to give it the kind of strength it needs to offset the fact that our oil industry is so totally dominated by foreign multinationals.
We do not need just another Canadian owned company. We need a company with clout. That is what we have. We now have a company that is an instrument of national policy. That
The Address-Mr. McMillan
is most important to remember at all times. This is an instrument of national policy. It has been highly successful.
Even Premier Bennett, who is not part of our party, said just the other day during a radio interview that to "BCRIC" PetroCan would make no sense. It makes no sense to "BCRIC" a company that is an instrument of national policy. Those were the words of Premier Bennett, and he knows of what he talks in this case. Elis advice should be heeded by members across the aisle when it comes to PetroCan.
I suggest there is a candidate for "BCRICing," the Canada Development Corporation. An article in the Journal a day or so ago suggested that this company is being considered for privatizing and turning back to private investors. I commend the government for considering that. It makes sense. This company is diversified in mining, petrochemicals, oil and gas. It has 32 per cent of its shares now held by individual investors. It is a shareholder company, not an instrument of government national policy.
The intention of the government at all times with the Canada Development Corporation has been to turn it back eventually to the private sector, reducing the government holding from 68 per cent to 10 per cent. They have embarked on that course. I suggest to the government that "BCRICing" PetroCan makes no sense, that it would just be a way to get out of an embarrassing commitment which all of us know is wrong. The public knows it is wrong, we know it is wrong, and you know in your hearts it is wrong. Do not "BCRIC" PetroCan. "BCRIC" the Canada Development Corporation. That makes sense.
If the government wants to add some other corporations that should be returned to the private sector, do so. That makes sense. You have a perfect vehicle; use it. The Liberals will support intelligent privatization. We will examine the Crown corporations to see which, if any, should be returned to the private sector. However, we will not support a dogmatic, narrow-minded approach which says that everything owned by the government should be privatized.
In the case of PetroCan every sensible observer, even Conservative observers such as the Globe and Mail, recognize that this company should be kept together, kept strong and an instrument of national policy. Don't "BCRIC," dismember, sell off or mess up PetroCan in any way. Show some vision. Have some pride in Canadian ownership of an outstanding Canadian enterprise. Keep PetroCan and expand it.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating most heartily the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) on being chosen Speaker in this Parliament. His is a most difficult responsibility, which he performed admirably and with a great deal of distinction and grace in the previous House. I am sure all hon. members join me in wishing him well as he faces the substantial responsibilities that are produced because of our minority government situation.
1 congratulate as well the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon.
158

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. McMillan
member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald). Theirs were first-rate speeches which set a very high standard for every member of this House. If I may be allowed a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I was particularly delighted with the speech given by my friend and colleague from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Cardigan. His address was a credit not only to himself, his constituency and the Island, but indeed to Parliament itself.
It is a great honour for any member to sit in this chamber where sat also the great parliamentarians of modern Canadian history, men like Arthur Meighen, M. J. Coldwell, and Ernest Lapointe. It is a pleasure to be seated in this House, and much more a pleasure to be making a speech here for the first time. I am particularly delighted to be standing here in this Parliament as the successor to a distinguished Canadian, Dr. Heath Macquarrie, who represented Hillsborough with enormous distinction for over 22 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: I acknowledge his presence in the House and am delighted both to succeed him and to see him here today. He made a most valuable contribution to Canadian affairs, to Hillsborough, to the Island, to Canada, and indeed to the world community through his interest and expertise, and his knowledge in the field of international affairs. I am glad that the Parliament of Canada will have the benefit of his formidable talents in the Upper Chamber, as a result of his appointment last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: The riding of Hillsborough of which I am the representative is essentially the greater Charlottetown area including West and East Royalty, Sherwood and Parkdale. It is not only the capital city area of Prince Edward Island, it is also the cradle of confederation itself. It is small geographically and by population, but its contribution to national affairs belies its very size and small population.
Hillsborough has a long and distinguished tradition of excellence in the field of higher education. It boasts a relatively new university, the University of Prince Edward Island, which was fathered by two established institutions, St. Dunstan's University and Prince of Wales College, which were older than Canada itself. Hillsborough has a first-rate community college for vocational and technical training, Holland College, and good primary and secondary schools. A special interest of mine is architecture and restoration and heritage, and my riding has some of the finest examples of early Canadian architecture to be found anywhere in the country.
I might mention also that the Confederation Centre of the Arts was built in 1964 as a result of taxpayers' contributions from every part of Canada, all ten provinces, the territories, and the dominion government. The Centre is now, and has been for some time, producing original Canadian musicals that are excellent by world standards.
[Mr. McMillan.)
We in the riding of Hillsborough, and in Prince Edward Island in general, enjoy perhaps a simpler life than Canadians in many other parts of the country. But it is a good life. It is a community where natural beauty, clean air and strong community ties are taken for granted. Our values are inherited largely from our Scottish, Irish, Acadian, and English ancestors. They have been enriched, however, by the contributions of people from all over the world who have given us the benefit of their cultures. My riding will be further enhanced by the arrival of some 500 new families from Ottawa following the relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


An hon. Member:: Aren't you lucky?


Thomas Michael McMillan: We are, indeed, lucky. And I want to emphasize to those public servants who may feel some trepidation about having their families uprooted, that Islanders are looking forward to their arrival and are doing everything possible to make them feel welcome in their new community.
The whole business of the relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs is a practical application of the principle of decentralization endorsed both by the previous government and by the current government. It is a principle which holds that the benefits to be derived from government itself as an industry should be spread as widely as possible across this great dominion. Mr. Speaker, it is not etched in stone that our national institutions or departments or agencies of government should, a priori, be ensconeed in the national capital area or in central Canada for that matter. I stress the importance of this relocation of the department to my riding. I think it is important, also, to the department, which I am sure, will be well accommodated in the city of Charlottetown. But to any public servants who may still have some reservations or hesitancy, some fears or anxieties about the reception they will find when they move to our community, I stress that those fears can be put to rest.
A moment ago I talked about educational opportunities in my riding-the fine university, an excellent community college, the first-class primary and secondary schools. I hope and anticipate and pray that by the expiry of this Parliament, whenever that may be, the city of Charlottetown will also be able to boast a first-class veterinary college. At present, we in Canada have only three veterinary schools, one in Guelph, one in Ste. Hyacinthe, and one in Saskatoon. There is none to serve the whole of Atlantic Canada. The only English-speaking veterinary school in eastern Canada, including Ontario, is in Guelph. And it is incapable of accepting more than six students from Atlantic Canada each year.
It is a fact that, each year in Canada, we are falling behind by some 100 trained veterinarians, the numbers required in the private and the public sectors alike. It is a tragedy, a national scandal, that we should be going outside our own country for trained veterinarians at the very time when our own qualified young people are being refused entrance to veterinary schools in Canada.
October 12, 1979

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from a report prepared by Dr. R. G. Thomson, planning co-ordinator for the proposed Atlantic regional veterinary college.
In both agriculture and veterinary medicine there are acute shortages in Canada of professionally trained men and women for specialized posts in government and industry.
In certain fields the shortage is so critical that Government agencies are having to hire a significant proportion of their professional staff outside Canada. At present Agriculture Canada is sponsoring a number of professional employees in full-time studies at foreign graduate schools. While this may be commendable in terms of promoting Canadian participation in international scholarship, every Canadian should be embarrassed that we are relying on foreign schools to train a significant proportion of the country's highly qualified personnel in agriculture and veterinary medicine-two fields of education in which, given our natural and human resources, we should be providing world leadership rather than imposing upon others.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have for some time now, been a proponent of a fourth veterinary school for Canada. 1 would especially like it to be in my own riding. In any event, 1 certainly want it to be in Atlantic Canada because of our great regional need. As 1 go about making speeches, attending meetings, consultations and so on, I am sometimes asked whether Canada can afford another veterinary school. Sir, we cannot afford not to have one. The savings from improved animal care and from the prevention of animal and fish diseases would far exceed the cost of establishing a school. The Government of Canada under the previous administration committed itself to the establishment of a fourth veterinary school. The Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission recommended that there be a fourth school in Canada and that it be not only in the Atlantic region but in Charlottetown, for good, sound academic reasons. Unfortunately, the project has now become bogged down because, I must say with regret, we maritimers have been arguing unduly among ourselves about the question of a site. Whether it is established in Truro, in Wolfville or in Charlottetown, 1 would urge the Council of Maritime Premiers, the forum in which a decision will have to be reached in the first instance, to put aside whatever parochial interests they may have for the good of the Atlantic region as a whole, and especially for the good of our young people.
1 have stressed the need to decrease our reliance on other countries for highly trained personnel. I have underlined the need for a veterinary school because it is a project which is dear to my heart and close to the interests of the Atlantic region. But the dire situation I have described with respect to our dependence on other countries for highly trained personnel is prevalent in a host of areas in higher education and in other aspects of our national life. The fact is we are graduating many hundreds of highly qualified Canadians, including Ph.Ds, who are unable to find suitable work or employment while, at the same time, we are going outside Canada to hire people who in many cases possess lesser qualifications. 1 am alarmed at the situation to be found in the universities in Canada especially in the light of their track record in hiring their own personnel. In case I may be misunderstood, misquoted, or quoted out of context, I want to stress that I am not suggesting that universities should propagandize for anything, or that they should proselytize for any cause. They are by
The Address-Mr. McMillan
definition international institutions and must not be circumscribed or restricted in any way by geographic or cultural factors.
But in Canada-and this is true of every country-we must have universities which address not only our international obligations but also our obligations to ourselves. Many Canadians believe strongly-and I share this view-that such a balance is somehow out of whack in their own country. Our Canadian universities have hired, and are continuing to hire, a greater proportion of non-nationals than are universities in any other country in the world.
If I may again quote a statistic or two, the ones I have are for the academic year 1976-1977, the year for which we have the most up-to-date figures-others will be forthcoming, and I am sure the picture will not be changed as a result of them- almost 30 per cent of our total university faculty was nonCanadian. That picture compares unfavourably with the situation in every other country. The corresponding figures for such great international universities as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne-any of them-hardly ever exceed 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent.
In some disciplines in Canadian universities the situation is particularly dire. I regret that those are often the very fields in which our young people are most strongly motivated in their perception of themselves and of Canada as a whole. For example, in archaeology and anthropology, in 1976-77, almost half the faculty at Canadian universities was non-Canadian. In philosophy, almost 35 per cent of the faculty was non-Canadian; in geography, 35 per cent; in sociology, more than 35 per cent; in history, 30 per cent; in political science, 30 per cent; and on and on. Last year 35 per cent of new appointments at our universities went to non-Canadians. In the west the figure was 40 per cent, and if we exclude Quebec the picture was even worse nationally. I do not think I would be exaggerating if I said that this is a national scandal. It is a disgrace of which every concerned Canadian should be ashamed.
I realize that my time is limited here today, but I would like to mention two particularly harmful effects of the situation I have described. First, we are denying our own young people opportunities for positions in higher education, teaching positions, research positions and others. Second, and just as seriously, we are unduly exposing our young people's minds to teaching priorities and research interests which reflect other peoples' cultures.
I am not suggesting that we should erect a Great Wall of China around our country, around our universities or around our young people's minds. I am saying, though, that there is a significant neglect of Canadian studies because our faculties and our researchers are giving undue attention to priorities which they brought with them from other countries. Is it any wonder that we are graduating students, from every level of education, from primary and secondary levels through to community colleges, higher education, and universities, who

October 12, 1979
The Address-Mr. McMillan
lack a basic knowledge about the history, politics, sociology and science of their country?
If one wants to identify one of the root causes of our national unity problem, 1 think one need go no further.
I bring to the attention of hon. members an excellent report published by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. This document was sponsored by them and written by Dr. T. H. B. Symons, chairman of the Commission on Canadian Studies. The report is called "To Know Ourselves" and it thoroughly documents the situation I have been able only to touch on. I highly recommend it as required reading for every concerned hon. member.
I recommend too the synopsis of that report for those who consider the size of it forbidding, a synopsis by the Book and Periodical Development Council of Canada, which is published as a public service by that council, and is readily available.
1 will conclude my remarks by expressing apology for any undue emphasis on the importance of higher education and research. But, with the indulgence of the House, 1 would like to mention one field in which I think there is a particular need for research and development, and that is the field of energy. As some will know, the province of Prince Edward Island is probably the most energy deficient piece of territory in all of Canada. We are 90 per cent dependent on conventional sources of energy, particularly oil, which is to say foreign oil. This has many implications for the cost of living and for our ability to cope with Canada's harsh winters. The implications are, however, particularly serious in terms of the haemorrhage of energy dollars from our region which this represents and, indeed, from our country.
1 want to say that every one in this House has a natural interest in the question of energy, the cost of living and attendant issues. But, I think we have to realize, as certainly the people in Prince Edward Island do, that we must do something about the high cost of energy and the ever escalating cost of that product. Too often we have been relying, I fear, on short-term measures and ad hockery. But, more seriously, perhaps, from the point of view of Prince Edward Island, the approach has too frequently been in the direction of global solutions, and this has been at the expense of looking at opportunities afforded by local situations, including climatic and geographic characteristics. I am not now going to enter into a debate as to whether nuclear energy is a good thing or a bad thing. I have no interest today in talking about the morality of that particular issue. I will address that question on another occasion as, I am sure, other members will.
Let me say, however, that the very heavy investment Canada has made in nuclear energy has practically elbowed off the stage altogether any attention to renewable energy sources. I am thinking in particular of the development of the technology of alternate energy. No one would suggest-and certainly I would not suggest today or at any other time-that alternate energy will ever replace totally, or even substantially in the foreseeable future, conventional sources of energy such as oil. But I do think it is possible to do a great deal more than

we are in directing research toward wind, solar heat, and wood-burning in particular.
In the province of Prince Edward Island, for example, it is often suggested that we are the million-acre farm. I think we are somewhat better endowed than that, for in our tiny piece of territory we have more than 600,000 acres of wood lots alone. This valuable resource could be cultivated, harvested and exploited, in the best sense of that word, for energy purposes now and for future generations.
I am not specially pleading, I hope, for Prince Edward Island, but I do suggest that our province constitutes an excellent potential laboratory for research and development in the renewable energy fields. As I already mentioned, we have an excellent university and other research facilities, some of them associated with government itself. There was created by a previous provincial government of a different political stripe from my own-I do not hesitate to give credit where credit is due-a superb Institute of Man and Resources devoted to the whole area of research and development in the renewable energy fields. That could constitute the nucleus for a first-class, impressive, massive investment by Canada, on a pilot project basis, in the renewable energy enterprise.
The fruits of such research would be particularly beneficial to the people of Prince Edward Island. Equally, I am convinced, the products and the benefits derived from such an enterprise could be shared by all Canadians. For example, I am thinking of the applicability of such research in northern Ontario, where conditions are very similar.
I should like to conclude on a positive note. I think all hon. members will join with me in suggesting that ours is an enormous challenge. Huge problems are facing our country, every province of Canada and every territory-in the energy field, in transportation, in regional development, in all aspects of the economy, in cultural affairs, and in many other fields. The challenges are formidable.
As the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) suggested earlier this week, ours is a new Parliament. Canadians have high expectations of this Parliament. They expect imaginative and courageous measures from us. We must not let them down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, together with my colleagues I extend to you my best wishes for your reelection as Speaker of the House. I am confident the wisdom you have shown during the last parliament demonstrates beyond any doubt that the choice made by the House in nominating you will give to this Parliament the strength and the necessary power to operate in an equitable manner. Your task will certainly not be easy, Mr. Speaker, but I am convinced that you will show all the competence your position
October 12, 1979

requires and that this 31st parliament will be proud of its Speaker.
I would also like to congratulate the member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and his colleague the member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) for having sponsored the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and I want to underline the remarkable manner in which they both have carried out this duty for it is not easy for a new member to take the floor for the first time in this House so filled with memories and where so many speeches have been delivered. I am convinced those two new colleagues, even though they are not on the right side, will be excellent members. Furthermore, 1 would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and all new cabinet members and assure them I will always be on their heels, not to be crushed, but rather to bite occasionally if Argenteuil were forgotten. For being elected I want to congratulate all those who like me are serving their first term in this Thirty-first Parliament. We joined battle in the last election, some fell and we, the newly elected, are proud of the mandate we were given by our respective people.
I would also like to extend my congratulations to all those who were re-elected, some not for the first time, and 1 under-
The Address-Mr. Gourd
stand the work they had to do because the work of a parliamentarian is to look after parliament's business in addition to an election period-it is not an easy thing. So I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to all those former re-elected members.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who waged an excellent battle and who would also probably make a great Liberal. His team-and 1 remember my NDP opponent during the last campaign-stood for what we Liberals had put forward. That is why 1 had to congratulate the Leader of the New Democratic Party. But I would not want to forget a French-speaking colleague, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy), who is also sitting in this parliament for the first time. 1 am convinced he will be an asset to this House. We were able to see that yesterday when he showed us his oratorical talents. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
/

Monday, October 15, 1979