1979-10-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the government seems to plan an incredible increase of more than 30 per cent in the price of oil, and whereas such a step would mean an increase of at least 30 cents to 45 cents per gallon of gas and 20 cents to 30 cents per gallon of heating oil, and whereas such an increase would mean an additional cost of at least $140 per year per car driver, and at least $160 per year per household, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde):
That this House directs the government not to make any change to the present arrangements that provide for an increase of only three cents to four cents per gallon of gas between now and June 30, 1980.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House.
Considering that in recent months thousands of civil servants with 15 to 25 years of seniority in the civil service were fired with no other explanation than the fact that their numbers had to be reduced, and considering that recent medical
reports have since raised the spectre of infarct, coronary thrombosis, alcoholism and depression apparently settling in at an alarming rate because these unjust and inhuman methods have been resorted to, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre):
That this House condem the use of such methods and that an order be given for an inquiry to be instituted in the matter of firings in the civil service which, to all practical purposes, are now discriminatory and contrary to the most elementary justice.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Because a 1,280 megawatt boiling water nuclear power installation is proposed for Sedro Woolley, Washington, a site contiguous to the Canada-U.S. border, and should construction proceed any future accident would threaten the lives of almost one million people in B.C.'s lower mainland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett):
That (1) Canada issue to the United States an aide memoire calling for a moratorium on the Sedro Woolley plant with a view to its relocation away from Canadian population centres;
(2) that during President Carter's visit here our Prime Minister discuss the concern of many Canadians over nuclear installations and the lethal effects of radiation leakage, and depending on the outcome of discussions between the two leaders, Canada consider initiating a reference to the International Joint Commission for study and recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 17, 1979
5.0.	43


GARRISON DIVERSION
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: 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 there is increasing uncertainty over the American government's intentions in relation to the Garrison irrigation project in North Dakota, in view of the fact that any form of biological linkage between the Garrison water systems and Manitoba would result in substantial environmental damage and seriously harm the fishing industry in Manitoba, and in view of the impending visit of President Carter to Canada on November 9, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael):
That the matter of the Garrison irrigation project be placed on the agenda for discussion as a priority issue and that the Canadian government convey to the President that there should be no form of linkage between the Garrison and Manitoba water systems.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of galloping inflation which is resulting in an ever-increasing high cost of living, which is having an adverse effect on our senior citizens in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That the Minister of Finance consult with his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, who is also President of the Privy Council, Deputy Prime Minister and government House leader, as well as with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with a view to bringing forward a measure whereby persons of 65 years of age and over with incomes of less than $15,000 per year would have no responsibility to pay federal income tax.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the unusual procedure confirmed yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) regarding the laying of charges under the combines act, where the Prime Minister approved a practice whereby the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs discussed the laying of charges with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), which was never the practice in the past, and considering that under section 15 of the combines act the director of investigation is to have complete independence, following an inquiry, to refer a case to the Attorney General for the purpose of laying charges, without any political influence or considerations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
That the Prime Minister conduct an immediate investigation into this case to determine who was present at the said meeting, what was said, and whether everything was according to law and practice, and that until the Prime Minister reports to the House on this important matter, he suspend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from his functions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-Port-Au-Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the recent ruling by the Human Rights Commission that regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission applicable to fishermen's wives are discriminatory, and in view of the fact that government members, when in opposition, urged that the discrimination against fishermen's wives be stopped, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House instruct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to change immediately, by order in council, the discriminating regulations under which fishermen's wives have been denied unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
October 17, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to return to the question of the Foothills' pipeline project and its decision to withdraw its application from the National Energy Board.
Yesterday, at the end of the question period, the Prime Minister kindly informed us of the date of the aide memoire, which was September 28. He said he would get further information on what other demarches had been made previous to that date. Could he answer the question now and, in particular, could he tell us whether any significant action was taken either by himself or by his ministers to push that Foothills' project, which not only means fewer tankers up the west coast but more jobs for Ipsco in Saskatchewan and steelworkers in Hamilton. Did he, personally, raise this matter with the President, perhaps in Tokyo, or speaking on the phone on some other occasion?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not, personally, raise this matter with the President in Tokyo. That was not one of the matters on which the former prime minister briefed me, suggesting I should raise the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -but ministers of this government have been in touch with Foothills and in touch with United States officials throughout the summer to make clear the preference of the Canadian government for the Foothills route and to make very clear our concern about the environmental impact of tanker traffic off the west coast.
We knew there was a deadline of October 2 for submission of an aide memoire to the United States. We submitted that aide memoire before that deadline so that there would be no question about the position taken by the Government of Canada which had been made very clear in an informal way on several occasions during the summer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Prime Minister is, perhaps jokingly, suggesting that I should have briefed him before the Tokyo meeting on such bilaterals. If he needs that kind of help, 1 am at his disposal.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The President of the United States will be coming here in early November, and I would be happy to tell the Prime Minister which important matters of interest to Canada he should raise.
I come back to his suggestion that during the summer there were some contacts with ministers-I am not interested in officials. The reason I did not brief the Prime Minister on that aspect was because we had, last March-last April-informed the United States government that Foothills was our preference. This information was given to the United States government within weeks after the U.S. had asked us for our preference. I am interested in knowing whether this government, through its ministers, informed the United States. The Prime Minister did not do so. Did the Secretary of State tell Mr. Vance? Did the Minister of Energy inform Mr. Andrus and, if so, at what date?


Charles Joseph Clark: There were several meetings with Foothills involving ministers-


An hon. Member:: That's not the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand that. I understand what the former prime minister is asking. The situation is this: the position of the Government of Canada was made clear by the former government in March of this year-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: April.


Charles Joseph Clark: In April, was it? I gave him more credit. Whatever the date, the former government made Canada's position clear. That position did not change. In informal meetings involving the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, with Foothills-in a formal meeting, involving officials, between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States on October 6 again it was reaffirmed that the position taken by the Government of Canada in support of Foothills in March or April of this year was the position the Government of Canada continued to hold. This was reaffirmed officially again in an aide memoire delivered on September 28 of this year to meet a deadline of October 2 set by the United States.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand there were meetings with Foothills, and I am glad of that. I am asking whether there were meetings with the United States. Perhaps the Prime Minister made a mistake, but he mentioned that there were meetings of officials on October 6. Surely, if the aide memoire was delivered on September 28, the least that might happen would have been that some ministers might have talked with their opposite numbers in the United States since the government was supporting our position of last March and April.
The Prime Minister keeps referring to the fact that there has been a change of government. They know this in the United States, too. The question is: was this government pursuing this very important policy affecting Canadian jobs and Canadian environmentalists?

October 17, 1979
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I did misstate the date. The meeting of officials was on September 6, not on October 6, and that was part of a regular consultation process of which the former prime minister is well aware.
The position of the Government of Canada was clear from the time the communication was sent by the former government. There was never any question in the minds of the ministers of the government of the United States as to the official position of the Government of Canada. This was reaffirmed officially by the Government of Canada in an aide memoire dated September 28.


LOSS TO CANADIAN ECONOMY AND THREAT TO ENVIRONMENT POSED BY TANKER ROUTE
Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Prime Minister, 1 am astounded that he would let an opportunity like this go by without a fight by the Canadian government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: The Prime Minister has referred to meeting over the summer with Foothills. He has referred to meetings over the summer and in September with the Americans. Who initiated these meetings? With whom, and when, did these meetings take place? That is what we would like to know. When did these meetings take place? Did the Prime Minister and his ministers talk about jobs lost to Canadians, contracts lost to our industries, and the environmental threats off coast?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carr Munro: Did the Prime Minister talk about that, if the Foothills contract was lost to Canadians? That is what we would like to know.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 assume that the purpose of this questioning is to try to indicate that there was some doubt in the minds of United States' officials as to the position of the Government of Canada relative to a preference for the Foothills route. There was no doubt at all. There was a meeting of officials on September 6 as part of a regular series of meetings. There were a number of meetings between ministers of this government and officials of Foothills through the summer affirming that the position of support for Foothills enunciated by the former government was the position which was maintained by this government.
I can inquire as to whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised the matter in bilateral ways with the United States, but the point is that there never was any doubt about support for the Foothills route and about concern about tanker traffic down the west coast.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that may be some minor consolation, but we on this side are not interested

in how the government wasted time all during the summer on a project of this importance.
The Prime Minister did not answer my question. What we want to know is what government ministers did all during the course of the summer, to ensure that Canada got this contract and had the approval of Foothills, which would ensure jobs for Canadians. In that connection, 1 wonder if the Prime Minister has received a telegram from local 1005 of the United Steel Workers, the largest local of steel workers in Canada, berating this government for its incompetence in not pursuing this adequately to protect the jobs of Canadians.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will come directly to the question. I will inquire as to whether a telegram was received and 1 will advise the former minister of my response to that telegram.


John Carr Munro: And the answers to the other questions.


FINANCE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the most recent reports of a planned energy price increase of $4 a barrel for next year and also the raising of the excise tax on gasoline to 37 cents a gallon, I wonder if the minister can inform the House by tabling what projections he and his department have made of the negative effects of this price increase in terms of unemployment, inflation and the gross national product? Predictions over the short term for the economy in the winter are very negative. Would the minister not agree that this increase would push us into a very severe recession?


Hon. John C. C'rosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking me to comment on speculation in the newspapers. There has been no decision by the government that there is going to be any increase in anything at the moment, so I ask the hon. member not to get "excised" about the whole matter.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister and his officials have done projections on various price scenarios and the effects these would have on the economy and Canadian consumers. Would the minister be prepared to table those scenarios in the House, and also to assure the House that we will have a full parliamentary debate on the question of price increases before they are implemented?


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure the hon. gentleman that the Department of Finance is doing scenarios all the time and, in fact, never has the Department of Finance given the people of Canada as much information as they have been given
October 17, 1979

since June 5. That will continue in the budget and by other means before hon. members of the House. But until the budget is brought down, I will not be giving further information in that direction. In the budget there will be all kinds of information which will satisfy the hon. gentleman on studies done and on what the effects are. Everything will be put before the House.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, a question supplementary to that of my leader's. I should like to ask the Prime Minister how we can assume that the U.S. government was aware of our policy when, during all the summer, his ministers and he himself have kept saying they were going to change the policy on Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was involved in this project and the government was going to change the policy on pricing. How can the Prime Minister suggest that the representations by the former government were good enough, when the present government was changing the whole energy policy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite are putting forth a very curious doctrine. They are suggesting that, after 16 years-too long-of government by that party, we should have spent the first five months of our mandate going around and indicating what comma we agreed with in the agreements they had brought forward, what policies we agreed with or disagreed with.
What we did during the election campaign and during the summer was to make very clear those areas where we intended to introduce reform, such as bringing the budget more toward balance, taking a new look at the operations of Petro-Canada, or bringing more control by Parliament over the operations of government agencies. In a number of those areas our policies disagree profoundly with those of our predecessors. There was no need to reaffirm, in direct meetings and in telephone conversations with representatives of the United States, our support of the Foothills' proposal, which was well known to the U.S.
1 do not understand why, apart from political reasons, members of the opposition are now trying to cast doubt upon the support of the government under two political parties for the Foothills route and the opposition of the government under two political parties to tanker traffic down the west coast.


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


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Prime Minister that the comma he is talking about was worth a billion and a half bucks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: 1 wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House truthfully, and not shirk the question: did he, or did he not, explain to the U.S. government, or did his ministers explain, that the fact they wanted to dump Petro-Canada, dismantle it and change the whole energy policy did not change the policy of the government with regard to the overland route for oil from Alaska?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That question was never raised in the minds or in the mouths of the United States. There was no doubt on that question, no doubt of the support of the Government of Canada for the Foothills route.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sent a plenipotentiary ambassador to the Middle East. Would it not also be useful to find a plenipotentiary to go to the United States, as he found a minister to go to Argentina?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure whether that is an application-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -indicating that the member for Ottawa-Carleton is not happy where he is, and I can understand that. 1 certainly do not intend to send ambassadors to make clear questions that were never in doubt.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment: it relates to the report on long-range transport of air pollutants issued on Monday by the Department of External Affairs.
The report concludes that five million metric tons of sulphur dioxide are produced in Canada every year. Contrary to news reports, can the minister assure the House that the signing of a treaty with the United States does not have to wait until 1981 after the installation of the new President and, if not, on whose
294

October 17, 1979
Oral Questions
judgment does the minister rely to come to the conclusion that Canada and the United States cannot sign an agreement before that date?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It would be very well received by this government and by myself personally if such an agreement could be signed much earlier than I have indicated. But I have an obligation to the House and to the public not to raise unreal expectations, given the political situation in the United States.	.
I have said that we would do everything that we could to have the negotiations, the control strategies and the scientific strategy completed in sufficient time. Our own people are hoping to report on that by mid-1980 so that the text and the structure of an agreement can be ready as soon as possible to be put in the hands of the new administration immediately after the election.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, in that same report there is a conclusion to the effect that the greater portion of sulphur deposition in Canada is the result of domestic emissions. What action does the minister intend to take with the provinces which, like Ontario, are reported today as being unwilling to clamp down on companies that emit pollutants causing acid rain?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the hon. member is understandable, especially given the fact that his party was the government for many years, that this acid rain problem was well known to them and that we heard nothing about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: In answer to the hon. member's question, I repeat-


Charles L. Caccia: He initiated the study.


John Allen Fraser: Hon. members opposite are obviously concerned that their own inaction is part of the reason this new administration must put in place an agreement with the United States.
I know the hon. member is sincere in asking his question. His suggestion is that we should move unilaterally against pollution emissions in Canada. My specific answer to that is the same as before, that we have chosen the route to work with the provinces, and until there is some indication that that is not going to meet with the agreement we are hoping for, that is the route we will continue.


FISHERIES
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the same report states that all forms of life in aquatic ecosystems can be irrevocably affected, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans what step his department expects to take to protect fishery products for future generations and, in light of the same report which mentions a lower production of sea products, how the minister intends to react.

Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I was getting so frustrated over here that I was about to ask myself a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Why are you in that party?


Mr. McGrath:: I am glad to see there is some interest left over there in the very important fishing industry in this country.
I welcome the hon. member's question and I share his concern. I want him to know that we are working very, very closely with the Department of the Environment on this question where jurisdiction is vested. I have every confidence in the ability of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to look after the interests of fisheries and all Canadians.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It relates to the fact that there have been 97 air crashes in British Columbia in the last year, 54 deaths associated with those air crashes, 33 deaths in the last seven weeks, and three in my riding just the other day.
In view of the fact that the flight service centres, the only source of assistance to general aviation for 350 miles along the coast of British Columbia, are now shut in terms of general services because the Treasury Board will not meet with the representatives, I ask the President of the Treasury Board if he would give the House today his undertaking that he will have his department resume negotiations with the radio operators' union.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

October 17, 1979


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence because the resources are so limited and the results tragic. In light of the fact that there are no dependable primary search and rescue resources for 350 miles along the coast of British Columbia-that is, from northern Vancouver Island to the Alaska border-could the minister tell the House what provisions he is willing to make to provide those resources, in view of the very dangerous situation which exists there?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the question is directed to me. In the short term it is very difficult. We are doing what we can in the way of replacement of smaller vessels. In the long term, we have signed an agreement with the United States and France to supply $13 million in the way of a search and rescue satellite which should be of almost inestimable value in the case of accidents and near tragedies on the west coast, particularly in that long stretch of water between Alaska and the north end of Vancouver Island.
 * *


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the minister know that several Canadian pulp and paper companies are refusing to sell to Canadian newspapers the newsprint they need?
Second, is the minister ready to refer that very serious matter to the director of investigation and research on combines and, finally, will the minister take concrete steps to help Le Journal de Montreal, a very important Quebec newspaper which must now restrict its circulation because the large pulp and paper companies refuse to sell.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the supply of newsprint is a matter which was brought to my attention very, very recently. I am giving the matter my consideration.
The allegation respecting the specific instance of the newspaper in Quebec is a matter which has not been drawn to my attention before, and I thank the hon. member for doing so.
Oral Questions


CALL FOR AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, last Monday the minister candidly admitted in the House that he found many serious loopholes in the Combines Investigation Act. If he was serious when he made such comments, I would ask him now why there was no reference to that legislation in the throne speech and why there was no reference to amendments to the Competition Act in Canada in the lengthy list of some 90 bills tabled by the House leader last week.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, there are many matters to which the government is giving very urgent consideration that were not referred to in the Speech from the Throne.


ACID RAIN POLLUTION-PUBLICIZING OF FIARMFUL EFFECTS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What does the minister intend to do through his department to provide Canadians with information about the effect of acid rain on the health of Canadians?
In particular, does the minister propose to address the matter of drinking water in rural areas where the quality of water is not controlled by the municipalities?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the matter of acid rain has so far been considered primarily an environmental one. However, I would like to advise the hon. member and other members of the House that my department, particularly the environmental sciences section, has been in contact with the Department of the Environment in respect of this monitoring work that it is doing.
In addition, there is a very excellent study going on now, in New York, by the United States government in respect of which my ministry has indicated an interest in monitoring, and we are doing that as well. This is a concern as it moves from an environmental matter to a health matter, but we find ourselves in good shape in terms of the information and data that is available in North America.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to comment on the second part of my question which related to the matter of drinking water in rural areas where the quality is not controlled by the municipality?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter I have not yet looked into and I am glad the hon. member has raised it. It is a

October 17, 1979
Oral Questions
matter that should be of concern to us and 1 will look into it and report to her.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and is in regard to branch line abandonments in western Canada. What criteria is the hon. minister using to decide whether or not a branch line will be retained or abandoned?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the criteria being used are those that were enunciated during the election campaign; that is, where elevator companies are prepared to provide adequate existing services or improve their services along branch lines, we will be prepared to ensure that transportation services are available.
This review is currently under way and 1 would hope to have a report within the next 30 days in order that these branch lines can be adjudicated on and determined in respect of whether they will be transferred to the basic network or become eligible for abandonment, consistent with our policy.


FISHERIES
Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who, on August 27, authorized a supplement of 10,000 metric tons to the cod quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and at the same time authorized the entry of ships of 100 feet and over into the gulf, which was prohibited by the former government in 1975. Can the minister tell the House whether to date the 6,000 metric tons of catches authorized for ships over 100 feet long were met and whether he consulted with the provinces before making such a decision?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that decision was taken after scientific advice had come to us that we could take an additional 13,000 metric tons in the Gulf. On the basis of that advice, consultations were held with the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee. There was consultation, and on the basis of that consultation it was agreed that 4,000 metric tons would be assigned the Gulf-based vessels, which left an additional 9,000 metric tons. We decided that on the basis of that new TAC, we would assign 6,000 metric tons to the 100-footers, or the offshore fleet which had fished in the Gulf prior to 1976.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAD CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary, if the minister is saying that there was consultation with the committees, 1 should like to know whether there was consultation with the provincial governments, in particular with the province of Quebec and, if so, whether he is prepared to table in the House all the correspondence in favour or against the decision made by the minister on August 27?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there was consultation with the five Atlantic provinces, including Quebec, which are represented on the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee. They did meet in St. John's, Newfoundland, in mid-July. There was consultation at that time and there was consultation with the deputy ministers.
In line with the open policy of this government, we would be prepared to make all correspondence available provided, of course, that the provinces agree.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister approved a practice whereby the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs discussed the laying of charges under the Combines Investigation Act with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport-specifically in the recent case of the Western Transportation Association-which to my knowledge was never the practice in the past, especially when 1 was the minister, when the hon. member for Windsor West was minister, and when the hon. member for Papineau was minister.
Would the Prime Minister explain how he can justify such a practice when the director of investigation under section 15 of the Combines Investigation Act is to have complete independence in referring cases to an attorney general for the purpose of laying charges, without any political influence or consideration? In the circumstance, would the Prime Minister tell the House if the director or his alternate were present at this meeting, and what was his recommendation in this case?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the latter part of the question, I will have to check to see if the director was present and to see if it is appropriate for us to make known his recommendation on a matter that is still ongoing. The former minister will understand the difficulty that might be involved in revealing the recommendation of an official on a matter that is still ongoing. I think the former minister would not want to suggest that consultation with

October 17, 1979
colleagues necessarily equates with political influence; at least it does not in this government, whatever was the former practice.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Prime Minister is that that sort of consultation never took place when I was the minister, when the hon. member for Windsor West or when the hon. member for Papineau was the minister. In circumstances in which the director is supposed to have complete independence in referring cases for the laying of charges, this appears to me to be a very serious matter, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would suspend the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from his functions while he fully investigates this case to determine whether the law and the practice were, in fact, followed in this case.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of suspending a minister. 1 certainly will look into the question as to whether all of the legalities were honoured, as I am reasonably sure they were.


William Warren Allmand: And the practices?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, and the practices that are appropriate; and I will report to the Elouse.


DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED ON POSSIBLE PROSECUTIONS
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a supplementary question. It is evident from his reply in this House at yesterday's sitting that he did not understand either the circumstances that led to the question on Friday and yesterday, or he did not understand the very sensitive role of the Attorney General, to be seen not to be influenced by political considerations at the time he is considering prosecutions under the Combines Investigation Act.
While the right hon. gentleman is investigating the matter, which I suggest he ought to have done on Friday and again yesterday, will he determine when the information that has been collected by the director of prosecutions was, indeed, turned over to the Attorney General for his consideration under section 15 of the Combines Investigation Act?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be quite prepared to determine that information and, if it is appropriate, to publish that information and advise the hon. member.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and
Oral Questions
Immigration. In view of the fact that the Conservatives promised during the election campaign to rescind regulations that restrict unemployment insurance benefits for part-time and seasonal workers, most of whom are women, and in view of the fact that today at a meeting of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women the minister betrayed this promise of action in favour of the usual study, will he please tell the House why further study is needed, and when can the women of Canada who have worked on part-time or seasonal jobs collect their rightful unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to a colleague of the hon. member a week ago, the whole subject of unemployment insurance is under review by this government. That review is comprehensive. It will not be done quickly and decisions will not be taken precipitously.
I can assure the hon. member, as I assured the Advisory Council on the Status of Women this morning-and they were happy, I might add-that the subject of part-time workers and the 20-hour per week regulation imposed by the previous government is very much a part of the current review. I am, quite frankly, looking for alternative suggestions to that rule. 1 would make the offer to the hon. member, as well as to any member of this House, if they have any better suggestions I really would like to hear them, because this is a most difficult subject.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that the minister has acknowledged that immigrant women experience a double disadvantage in the labour force, and because it takes longer than three years for immigrant women with young children to learn English and compete in the job market, what does the minister plan to do to extend funding for orientation, training and child care programs for immigrant women beyond the present three-year limit on residency?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member was able to obtain a copy of my speaking notes from this morning. I only regret she was not in attendance.
I can tell her that, unlike the previous government, the immigrant aid settlement program will be extended where the first priorities of a settlement contract have been met-that is, for immigrants who have been in the country for less than 36 months. Where there are funds that are not spent, they are available for any immigrant settlement group to spend for immigrants in the community, including immigrant women, beyond that 36-month period. My officials have been instructed to draw the contracts accordingly.

October 17, 1979
Ora! Questions


FISHERIES
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I wish him well in his important responsibilities.
1 know that his government has made a fetish of consultation with the provinces, even in areas where the provinces have little or no jurisdiction. Certainly this is the case in the allocation of quotas between types of fishing fleets.
May I ask the minister if he would inform his colleague from New Brunswick who immediately complained that he had not been consulted. I suspect that those who were consulted and agreed were from provinces where large fleets have dominated inshore fisheries policies for years. Has the minister considered that a lot of small fishermen belonging to fragmented organizations do not sit on the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee, and in fact that he as minister should make sure that their interest is served, and not only the interest of the large fleet based outside the Gulf?

I want to say to the hon. gentleman that I take second place to no one, not even the hon. member, in looking after the interests of the inshore fishermen. I say to him that consultation does not necessarily mean agreement, but there was consultation. On the basis of that consultation, we took our responsibility and made a decision.
I am sorry the hon. member does not agree with the decision taken, but it was made on the basis of updated biological data. I had no choice but to allocate those additional quotas. I was advised, after consultation with the inshore fishermen, that they could only use an additional 4,000 metric tons. After consultation with the non-Gulf fleet, they wanted the remaining 9,000 and we agreed to allocate them 6,000 metric tons because they had been fishing anyway for the same stock off Sydney Bight. That now means they will be, of course, able to fish in the Gulf in November and December at a time when there will be no inshore fishing activity in any event.


Roméo LeBlanc: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The reason, mainly, why I have to take an interest in the fisheries is my concern about some of the policies that are appearing on the horizon. This is very much one of them.
May I ask the minister if he will reconsider his decision, based on the fact that the large offshore fleet that he is allowing to return to the southern Gulf in fact has been largely served by the resources of the 200-mile limit? Will he check the amount of fish that they have taken, which they did not usually take off northern Newfoundland? Will he look at the amount of fish that they have taken in relation to the small fishermen? 1 am not speaking now of the 65-footers; I am speaking of the 40 and 45 and 50-foot boats which have yet to benefit from the 200-mile limit, including the southern Gulf.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the decision stands for this year. In answer to my hon. friend, I can tell him that it would have been irresponsible on my part if I did not allocate those additional quotas to the offshore fleet in order to provide some additional supplies to the underutilized plant capacity in the maritime region. That would have been irresponsible, and I suspect the hon. member would have been the first one to flag it.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the very welcome announcement, both in the Speech from the Throne and in the list of bills proposed for this session which was given to the House on October 11, to the effect that
October 17, 1979

there will be amendments to all of the statutes affecting veterans, may I ask the minister if one of those amendments will be a provision that will make it possible for widows of disabled veterans to be given prorata pensions in cases where they are now denied any pension because the veteran's disability was below 48 per cent?
While he is answering that question, can he tell us what other measures affecting veterans we may look for in the next little while?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the member from Winnipeg North Centre for his question. If ever the word "colleague" is used properly across the floor of the House, it must surely be between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: As is now well known, I have made proposals to my cabinet colleagues about the various acts covering pensions and other things concerned with veterans.
With respect to the 48 per cent rule, while I have not been able to move as far as the hon. member would like or as far as I would like, I have made a start in moving in the direction we would both like. 1 understand that the proper format for this kind of discussion is not to give away everything that is in a bill before it is presented for first reading.
I can only say that the bill will cure several ills that are there at present and will make a move in the direction that the hon. member would like on the 48 per cent pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister for his assurance that we are going to move at least some distance with respect to amendments to the Pension Act. Will he also be bringing in amendments to revise and update the War Veterans Allowance Act in view of the thorough review of that legislation that has taken place during the past number of months?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will not be bringing in an act that will cover everything that was reviewed, but there will be a mention and there will be some amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act.


NATIONAL UNITY
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Last Monday night, during his mini-stop in Hull in his pre-referendum pilgrimage, the premier of the province of
Oral Questions
Quebec invited the 18,000 federal public servants on the north side of the Ottawa River to join the public service of Quebec.
I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to ask certain "Judas Iscariot" federal public servants who have already started a propaganda campaign within the various departments to resign immediately and go to work in that illusionary paradise to which the separatist leader of Quebec has lured them in order to have their votes much more than their services.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it would be very helpful to myself and to the House, I am sure, if the hon. member would name the Judas Iscariots that he is referring to.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-INQUIRY WHETHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WILL BE FREE FROM LEGAL RESTRICTIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister's lack of interest in the Quebec referendum question-ranging from helplessness to indifference-can this attitude on his part be interpreted by federal civil servants as being the position of the present government, which would allow them to act as they wish either for the "yes" or "no", without the least legal restriction?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we better serve the cause of national unity when we show Quebeckers and all other Canadians that Canada now has an administration which can co-operate successfully with the provinces. This is the way we intend to encourage Quebeckers to support the federalist cause in any vote.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Last Friday, the minister stated that he could not see any reason why his department should turn down the $10 million loan application which the Quebec government has made to develop a salt mine operation in the Magdalen Islands. Could the minister indicate to the House whether he has any objection to that now and, if not, when he is likely to make an announcement about this grant?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

October 17, 1979
Privilege-Mr. S. Robinson
question which is of great concern to his constituency and to the province of Quebec.
As long as this very substantial project, which has capital costs in excess of $60 million, would not have injurious affectations on the whole Canadian salt industry, I would be very favourably disposed to assisting in whatever appropriate way we could do so. On the other hand, there are environmental and business matters which are still under consideration. 1 would be very pleased to acquaint the hon. member with the progress of these assessments as they proceed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a serious question of privilege, of which I did give Your Honour notice earlier today.
My question arises from answers which were given to the House yesterday and last Friday by the Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence), and, in addition, it arises from an alteration of substance in today's Hansard.
On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, 1 asked the minister a question-I note that the minister is returning to his seat- concerning a meeting of a number of cabinet ministers about a possible criminal prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act. The minister's answer to this House at that time was as follows:
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.
1 subsequently learned, and it became clear, that this was not in fact the case. In fact the minister confirmed that the meeting did take place involving the ministers in question and on the subject of the possible prosecution mentioned. While the minister yesterday stated that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), who was present at the meeting, made no representations with respect to the timings of the possible prosecutions, 1 am informed that the minister did indeed express his viewpoint at the meeting with respect to the prosecution in question.
Second, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated to the House that the meeting which took place on Friday was, and I quote from his answer of yesterday:
-one of a series of meetings thal take place quite frequently in regard to various prosecutions recommended by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the Minister of Justice.
I met yesterday with the director of investigation and research in the hon. minister's department who referred the inquiry to the Attorney General for possible criminal prosecution and who, Mr. Speaker, was present at the meeting on

Friday. This gentleman indicated that he did not recall during his five years' tenure as director a single similar meeting taking place discussing a possible prosecution involving himself and cabinet ministers.
I contacted his immediate predecessor. He indicated the same, that he had no recollection of a previous meeting taking place.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we had confirmation from the previous ministers involved that no such meetings had in fact taken place. This directly conflicts with the answers which were given by the minister to this House.
I should also add that I had arranged originally to speak with the gentleman in question, the director of investigation and research, and that 1 had confirmed a meeting with him for Monday of this week for one o'clock. That morning I was informed in this House by the minister that I was not to meet with the director of investigation and research-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -until such time as the minister had had an opportunity to clarify the nature of meetings between members of Parliament and civil servants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make reference to a substantial alteration in the Hansard reference to this matter.
I received the blues-which of course are green-of the answers to the questions yesterday. I checked the blues and an answer was given-at least was reported by the minister- which did not accord with my recollection of what in fact had taken place. I ordered the tape recording of the question from yesterday, and there is a fundamental and substantial alteration.
Hansard for October 16 indicates as follows:
Indeed, I believe this was the first time the minister had been to that type of meeting.
The tape recording indicates otherwise. I quote:
Indeed, I believe that this was the first time the minister had had that type of information with him.
There is a fundamental difference between the two versions of the events.
1 wish to conclude by asking that should Your Honour find that a prima facie matter of a question of privilege has arisen on the grounds on which I have risen today, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this matter of privilege be referred by this House to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for full investigation and report back to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, we have again today, as we had last week, a clear indication of a government
October 17, 1979

that is treating the House of Commons like the group of fools that the new Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) secretly thinks the members of Parliament are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: This is a very important question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Last week we had the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) clearly having been caught in a situation where he had told some people one thing and other people another, and had not correctly informed the House of Commons.
Now we have a situation with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) who has been clearly caught by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who is to be congratulated for bringing this kind of thing to the House early enough in the session for you, sir, to give some kind of direction as to how far this misleading can be allowed to proceed before it is clarified by the Chair.
I rise to support the motion put by the hon. member for Burnaby. 1 think he is to be congratulated for again bringing this sort of thing before the House early enough in the session for you to make a decision so as not to allow the government to mislead the House, as they did today on the pipeline question in the Yukon, and now with a specific example concerning the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the only reason that 1 rise is because I was most surprised to note that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) would bring me into this matter when 1 indicated to him during the question of privilege that, if there was any mistake on my part, it was an innocent mistake because they had met, 1 said, at this moment. 1 would appreciate members accepting when other members try to clarify a situation by coming before the members of the House in order to give them the benefit of all the facts, without having it thrown back in their face. I did not have to withdraw that because, as you indicated, Mr. Speaker, it was just a question of words and 1 was right. 1 want to start this Parliament off on the right foot. 1 think it is very irresponsible and cheap of the member to come back at me the way he has done, and 1 would doubt it very much-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If you expect the House of Commons to run as it should, ladies and gentlemen, 1 hope you will respect when members stand on this side and, in all good conscience, try to clear the record, without you taking some cheap political advantage-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have had your point. It was a cheap shot. It was to your own political advantage, and I resent it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. S. Robinson


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that hon. members on the government side do not really appreciate the seriousness of the question of privilege and the question raised in this particular issue. Prosecutions under the Combines Act are some of the most important and largest prosecutions in this country. You will recall recently in the sugar case the judgment ordered by the Supreme Court was $2.5 million.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: What about the former minister, the member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)?


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member for Papineau at that time took the honourable course of action which I think that that hon. member opposite should take today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) put this question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). The answer by the Prime Minister is alarming. The hon. member for Burnaby said to the Prime Minister:
Will the right hon. Prime Minister also confirm to the House that there will be no further such involvement, particularly by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in discussing possible charges of price-fixing by oil companies under the Combines Investigation Act?
As we all know, there is an inquiry going on with respect to the oil companies and that is just about ready for prosecution. What did the Prime Minister answer when asked to give assurance that there will be no further discussions? He said:
Mr. Speaker, if I properly interpret the question put by the hon. member, he is asking that I guarantee that before the government takes action, ministers who might have a particular interest in an action that would be taken should not be consulted. Naturally, 1 am not going to give that kind of guarantee.
The Prime Minister is saying that he will not guarantee that these kinds of discussions will go on any further. That is a shocking thing under our tradition with respect to prosecutions as they are carried out by attorneys general of this country and carried out by the director of investigation under the Combines Act.
I should point out that the director of investigation under the Combines Act is not an ordinary civil servant. He has statutory powers under the Combines Act to act independently, without any pressures or influence or any sort of political discussion. Therefore, not only would I support the hon. member for Burnaby in his question of privilege that this be referred for full investigation to see who was there, what was said, and how many meetings there were, but I go back to the question 1 put to the Prime Minister. I believe this minister should be suspended until this whole thing is settled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I did not know if there was going to be another ex-minister making a contribution to this debate. As I understand the situation, and

October 17, 1979
Privilege-Mr. S. Robinson
I am sorry that 1 received no official notification whatsoever that a question of privilege would arise today on this matter, there is a request that if there is a valid question of privilege that has been enunciated before you that you refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. 1 may say to you that certainly I would have no objection for that to be done if you thought you had genuine cases of privilege before you.
Again, 1 had nothing from the Chair, the Table or the hon. member about this matter. However, as 1 understand the question of privilege that has been enunciated to you, it is a double-barrelled one. Number one, there has been some tinkering with the official journals of this House in relation to Hansard of yesterday. If that is true, that is a very serious charge to make. Certainly 1 would like to see that cleared up. Second, somehow or other in the course of the question periods of Friday, Monday, and yesterday, I intentionally misled the House. Basically I think those are the two portions of the question of privilege before you.
Let me deal with the first one first. In no manner, shape or form have I corrected Hansard at all, or attempted to correct Hansard at all in respect of anything that I said yesterday or the day before, with the possible exception of some very gross grammatical errors that I have the habit of making in this House, but certainly in respect of any question of substance referred to by the hon. member, I can indicate to you, sir, to the House, and to the member, that 1 have not changed or intended to change Hansard in any way, and in relation to the phraseology used by the member I have no knowledge whatsoever of that type of change being made.
As a matter of fact, in respect of both versions which the hon. member has just given to the House, my impression and my memory are that both of those are wrong. Not only is Hansard wrong, but also in respect of the tape which the hon. member says he heard in respect of what I said-I think that was wrong, because what I intended to say, and what I believe I did say in respect of this question, and the knowledge of my colleague in respect of this matter, was that the meeting that we held last Friday, a meeting by the way that was not even called by me, was the first opportunity that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) had of being apprised of the facts of this matter.
That meeting was not called by me. It was called by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Flynn) pursuant to his responsibilities and his duties. The ex-minister said that type of meeting had never been called before. 1 believe he is wrong. In any event, that type of meeting had been held before. As a matter of fact, in regard to possible prosecutions under the Combines Investigation Act, that type of consultation has taken place not only under this administration but under previous administrations.
In respect of the advice that was given to the Minister of Transport, which is the crucial point referred to by the member referring to alterations in Hansard, I sent a brief to the Minister of Transport which I have reason to believe he unfortunately received just as he was going to that meeting, and that meeting was the first time in an information-giving

session such as that the Minister of Transport had any opportunity to be aware of the meeting at all.
That is the type of impression I intended to leave with the House when I said what I said, and I firmly believe that is exactly what I did say. If the hon. member is now saying that I said something different from that, I am saying that the hon. member is totally wrong.
Getting back to the other question, the question of me misleading the House in respect of previous meetings, I say to the ex-minister that if he does not know that this is not a discretionary matter for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he should know it is not a discretionary matter.
It is not me who the director of investigations has to convince to proceed with an action in that case. It is not me who the Minister of Transport or any other operating departmental head has to convince. The question whether or not there is to be a prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act is a matter solely and exclusively within the responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada.
I believe the Minister of Justice is making a speech today, perhaps in the other place-I am not sure-clearly indicating that it is his responsibility, and to know more about the intended prosecution he wanted, of course, to consult with me; he wanted to consult with the director, he wanted to consult with the minister and, as a matter of fact, he wanted to consult with another minister, the minister whose responsibilities involve federal-provincial relations, because in regard to the western trucking situation what has to be done, because of governmental intervention into the whole question of rate setting and the whole question of route setting, has to involve some direct and open consultation with provincial ministers. To indicate that this type of consultation with this government should not be carried on by anyone, even with other governments, is a completely ridiculous notion.
I was very interested to hear three different ex-ministers say that it is not within the responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada to consult with other ministers before he starts a prosecution. That is utter nonsense. I happen to believe it is utter nonsense within the knowledge of the ex-minister who just interrupted me, not to mention two or three other ministers. I say this because I can well remember, in this very chamber, the attorney general of Canada, who at the time was a certain hon. member, Ronald Basford, indicating on March 17, 1978, that as attorney general of the day he had consulted with certain of his ministerial colleagues before instructing that charges be laid against the Toronto Sun, its editor and its publisher, under the Official Secrets Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If my memory serves me well, that minister of the day would have been consulted at that time by the then attorney general because obviously he had a large part to play in respect to the very circumstances in which that charge was laid. I suggest there are other ex-ministers, still members of
October 17, 1979

this House, who were consulted at that time by the then attorney general. Of course there has to be the fullest consultation within the ministry with respect to all these things and, by golly, if there had not been, I would say the record of that particular ex-minister with regard to combines investigation cases obviously shows he should have consulted, if he did not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Within this ministry there is now and there will continue to be the fullest consultation between ministers. That is what I meant to say the other day, that is what 1 believe 1 did say, and that is what 1 am saying is the truth today. It certainly was not misleading to any member of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no intention of prolonging this discussion. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has raised by way of a question of privilege a matter which contains three points-it has been described as having two but essentially it contains three, none of which, I think, falls within the definition of privilege following the intervention by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence).
First, is the question of the possible alteration in Hansard. I have had a preliminary investigation undertaken and the line to which the hon. member for Burnaby refers may have been misread by the reporter-I am not sure-but 1 will certainly undertake to the House to investigate, as I always do, and report to the House. Any alteration in Hansard is, of course, a very serious matter. But that is a subject for me to take up, now, with the editor in the light of the minister's assertion that at no time did he effect any alteration in the record. Once the minister has not done so, if it is the editor or the reporters, that is the responsibility of the Chair, and I will investigate the matter and make a full report at the earliest opportunity.
The other two points relate to whether or not it is a proper practice for ministers to consult with one another before laying a prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act. While that is a fascinating point, it is not a procedural point. Whether or not ministers are taking a step which is not in keeping with precedent in terms of ministerial practice is a matter of some concern and interest to hon. members, I am sure, but whether they do so, or whether they propose to continue to do so, may become a matter of legality or a matter of constitutional significance, even. However, it is surely not a matter of procedural significance here in the House; it is not a question of privilege whether ministers do or do not consult before the director of prosecutions gives advice to the Attorney General of Canada on the initiation of proceedings under that particular statute. Therefore, since it is not a procedural matter, there is no point our continuing argument as to whether or not consultations of that kind can take place or have taken place in the past. It does not give rise to a question of privilege, at least not in the manner in which it has been cast today.
Finally, there is the question of whether or not the minister misled the House. He has stated he stands by what he says, that it was a correct explanation of the information he pos-
Privilege-Mr. Fox
sessed at the time. Presumably he invites hon. members to check the record to see what it says and whether it conforms to the information he now has. From the procedural point of view the significance is that the minister stands by what he said. Therefore, if any misleading took place, it was obviously misleading which was not intentional.
Members who examine the precedents will understand that if a question of privilege is to be established here the House must not only have been misled by the minister but the House must have been misled intentionally. Whether he was right or wrong, the minister says he stands by his answer. Therefore, if any misleading took place-which he denies-then obviously that misleading could not have been intentional in the circumstance. Whether this becomes a matter for debate or argument, or criticism of the quality of the answer given, or criticism of the performance of the minister, remains, again, an open question. What I have to decide is whether or not there is a procedural matter involved. The only circumstance in which it can become a procedural matter involving privilege would be if the minister deliberately misled the House and, since the minister stands by his answer, obviously he could not have deliberately misled the House if, indeed, he misled the House at all, which he denies.
For these reasons, having examined the three points which were raised, I do not think any useful purpose can be served by continuing the discussion at this time.


MR. FOX-ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Francis Fox (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is the first opportunity 1 have had to bring it to the attention of the Chair; it has just come to my notice. It arises from an answer given to me in the House yesterday during the question period after I had asked the minister responsible for employment at what time he would be making public his employment strategy. In answering that question the minister indicated, as reported at page 228 of Hansard'.
Most of the details of these programs will he announced in the budget since they may involve budgetary matters. So they will be announced at the time of the budget.
That was a straightforward, pretty clear answer, Mr. Speaker. However, it has been brought to my attention that this very morning, in a speech made outside the House, the hon. member in his notes of a speech to which he referred in the question period, indicated not one, not two, not three, not four, not Five, not six but seven initiatives, as he calls them, of one of the major components of his employment strategy.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an infringement of the privileges and rights of members of this House and certainly not in keeping with the rhetoric we were given to believe in the Speech from the Throne wherein the hon. minister's leader

October 17, 1979
told us that this government would try to make Parliament a more meaningful place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, as I indicated to the hon. member yesterday, that the key elements of the employment strategy are budgetary matters properly introduced at budget time. The speech of which the hon. member has obtained a copy-along with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) and, I hope, others-relates to an employment strategy for women. There are broad outlines of courses which are already public knowledge, but some of the details of which may be in the budget, clearly have not been revealed to the public or to anyone in a public way. The details will be, as indicated yesterday, a matter for the budget in this House.
1 can assure the hon. member that there is still time, if he has any reaction to the seven items to which he has made reference, or to any other matters which might be properly included in the employment strategy, that I would welcome his views and those of his colleagues as a constructive contribution to the evolution of an important employment strategy.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Edward Crombie: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


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

Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the reported proposed increase of $4

per barrel a year for oil and, more specifically, an increase of 24 cents to 30 cents a gallon in the price of gasoline now being proposed by the Government of Canada to the ten provinces, which will have a catastrophic impact on the Canadian economy resulting in massive inflation and unemployment and triggering an economic recession affecting all regions of Canada.
It is imperative that, before implementation, this House of Commons urgently and immediately discuss this alarming Government of Canada proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have received in proper time the notice of the hon. member of his intention to seek the invocation of Standing Order 26 in order to arrange an emergency debate on the subject he has just outlined to the House, and his presentation is in keeping with the notice which he did give me.
I do not feel that this is a proper subject for discussion at this time pursuant to Standing Order 26, for several reasons. The first is that I have some doubt as to whether it is necessary to set up an emergency debate to discuss anything during the course of the throne speech debate when any member can seek the floor and raise any subject he believes is relevant to the Speech from the Throne. 1 would not have ruled the matter aside on that point alone, because there are obvious restrictions on the ability of a group of members to address themselves to a subject in a cohesive way during the throne speech debate, but, after all, I must have regard for the fact that the hon. member and his colleagues do have an opportunity to participate in the balance of the throne speech debate and to focus on this subject if it is their desire to do so.
I have some other doubts, though, which lead me, on balance, not to grant the application. I have some concern as to whether this is on an ongoing matter rather than a matter of critical proportions. We have several problems of this sort. Members seek to utilise the provisions of Standing Order 26 on various problems in the country such as unemployment, inflation, and matters of that nature which are continuing problems but which, members allege, at a given time cross from being chronic to acute problems worthy of emergency consideration. Oil prices are a continuing matter in that category, and it would be very difficult to persuade me that continuing or chronic considerations are, or ever were, intended to be the proper subject of Standing Order 26. However, even if they were, in this particular case I have further doubts.
I am sure that even on a cursory examination of the news reports related to the subject which the hon. member has raised, price increases, as usual, would be for a future date, and in fact would not be at one time but would be phased in over a rather extended period of time. All of that obviously has to be taken into account when considering whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss these.
It remains unclear as to whether the government, in proposing the price increases, either requires or, even if it does not require, intends to seek the approval of Parliament. That remains uncertain for me now, and in any case in the final analysis it has been said, and was repeated again today by the
October 17, 1979

Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), that the price increase for crude oil itself does not require parliamentary approval.
The hon. member has included in his motion, and I quote more specifically "an increase of 24 cents to 30 cents a gallon". That, I understand on the basis of the replies of the Minister of Finance here in the House, relates to a suggested increase in the federal tax which would, 1 gather, be coupled with any such increase about which the hon. member is concerned. If that is so, that would clearly be a budgetary measure and would be debated in full during the course of a budget presentation. Therefore, 1 have to conclude that the House would not, on the information 1 have now, be deprived in any way of ample opportunity to debate the matters raised in this application, if in fact they do come about, which was left in some uncertainty today.
Therefore, until some of these matters are clarified more completely, I would not be disposed to think the House should consider this matter as an emergency pursuant to my understanding of Standing Order 26.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, which is my first to rise to speak in this Thirty-first Parliament, to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker. I had the opportunity in my first session of Parliament to have you as a neighbour, a row ahead of me, and I remember those days very well. Your wit and your wisdom have only increased since that time, and they were at a very high standard then.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I would also like, in the spirit of this House in its better moments-and we will start off with the better moments and see how it goes through my speech-to offer my congratulations to the new Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and hon. members opposite on the mandate given them in the election. I want to talk about the degree of that mandate as I make my comments today, but as best I can I sincerely wish them well in the interest of Canada.
I want to congratulate both the mover, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), and the seconder of the address in reply, the
The Address-Mr. Fleming
hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald). Their thoughtful comments about their constituencies, their firmness of mind and freshness bode well for their contributions to this Parliament in the months ahead.
I plan to deal with two areas. First, as a member of the opposition and a member of Parliament since 1972, 1 would like to deal with the commitments made by the new government during the course of the last election campaign and what we now have instead. As well, 1 want to deal with the cultural field, in which I was given some opportunity by my leader to concentrate in an area which I believe is absolutely fundamental and critical to the survival of this nation.
I should like to speak on the issue of the new government, about what they promised and what we have. May I review, if I can, some of their economic proposals. They said that the last government, the government of which I was a supporter, had created terrible deficits, that indeed the spending of the Government of Canada was sending Canada down the road to hell. And so, in the course of the last campaign they concocted as an answer something called the stimulative deficit. That was created by that great democrat, Senator de Cotret. The senator proposed that, and that is what we heard in the campaign. Upon their election and in a minority situation, they abandoned that as impossible because they said matters were even worse than they thought they were so far as deficits were concerned. That is a possible position to take, except that that particular declaration, while abandoning a major plan that offered the return of money to many Canadians who felt the tax burden was becoming unduly large, that rationalization, came the same week that another senior minister of the new government announced that the deficit for the current fiscal year would be less than that forecast by the previous government.
In turn, the previous government was accused of being gutless and unimaginative on several very basic economic principles followed by that previous government. We were attacked for persistently claiming to float the dollar and, in fact, not floating it. I can remember when, day after day, the then member for Don Valley, now the principal economic adviser to the new Prime Minister, would rise in the House and attack the minister of finance of the last government, saying, "You are not floating the dollar at all; you are interfering with hundreds of millions of dollars; you are meddling with it. Fix it or float it. 1 would like to have it fixed." 1 believe that is what he said. He said, "1 would like to have it fixed, but make up your mind." Upon forming the government in the six months that followed, they followed precisely the same policy they had constantly attacked when they were in opposition.
When it comes to the traditional policy of recent Canadian governments to increase our interest rate in line with increases in the American interest rate in order to attract capital and to grow as a country, we were constantly attacked for following the Americans, for not having some independence of mind, and for not finding an alternate course. Of course what we have seen happen since the election is again the policy they attacked

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Fleming
as a fundamental mistake on our side which they have now decided to follow. They followed it religiously, even though there are many of us on this side who believe the time has come now to investigate at least, to see if it is wise, simply without questioning, to follow the increases in the American rate, especially when our own inflation rate is considerably lower than that of the Americans and we may indeed have a possible alternative policy that could work for Canada.
At any rate, on all these fronts, on the promised spending and give-out to the taxpayers, on the issue of the floating or non-floating dollar, on the issue of our inflation rates, they promised the opposite of what we were doing, but all they have done since they have formed the government is exactly what we did. I suggest that placed in the minds of the Canadian public, now that Parliament has finally met, some real concern about credibility and some real doubts that there would be some changes. Obviously the outcome of the election showed that some change was desired. That is what they said they would give, but apparently in those fundamental areas they will not give it at all.
They also accused us of being insensitive-and this was through the other side of the mouth-when we proposed the tightening up of the unemployment insurance regulations, because there was a broad feeling in the land, and a feeling in this House among members of most of the parties at least, that systems which were well intended were not working well. So, 1 must say that after considerable debate in my own caucus in the last Parliament, some changes were put forward, and those changes, finally after lengthy debate, were adopted, but with the then official opposition opposing us on that issue. What is the first thing they did upon becoming government? They gave final approval to putting those changes into effect!
I am talking about credibility and the very difficult position of the Canadian public as we try to make this Parliament work. During the campaign 1 heard a great deal about wage and price controls, about the last campaign five years earlier, the 1974 campaign. I heard about how we promised something and did a complete reversal. Well, at least it took us 18 months and very changed economic circumstances to do a reversal. They, in three or four months, reversed on almost every major economic plank they had, and the ones where they have not, 1 find most incredible as an offering to this Parliament for Canada's future.
I should like to mention one or two economic issues such as the issue of cuts to the civil service, the so called privatization. As 1 recall, that began by the Progressive Conservative Party saying. "You have too much government. We are going to cut it down. It is too much of a burden. The people are paying too much in taxes and the deficits are too great." They said, "Our answer will be a cut of 60,000." That is a nice figure; it has lots of zeros in it, but how they came up with the six in front I do not know. They got rid of Bryce Mackasey and that leaves them with 59,999. However, they say they have a plan.
That mastermind-I know he does not like to hear it said- the mastermind of the bank of western Canada, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), continues to demon-

strate his ability as one of Canada's leading economic acrobats. In the minds of the Canadian public these cuts are going to mean less of a burden on the taxpayer, and yet he is suggesting that one of the major Crown corporations the government should get rid of is a company like de Havilland with several thousand workers from my own constituency, a Crown corporation that a Liberal federal government took over in order to build it, to concentrate on technology which could be a world competitor and to make it strong. That is happening; it has just begun to show a reasonable profit. But what do they do? They say they will get rid of it. Well, there are two problems with that. First, that will not help the pocketbook of the Canadian taxpayer because the company is making profit and it is in the interests of the Canadian public to retain that company, at least until it reaches the point of considerably greater health. Right now it is at the turning point of real expansion and real success, and we will have to watch very closely as the new government moves toward privatization of de Havilland, to be sure that indeed the long-term interest of that technology and the interests of those workers are kept in mind.
Much the same can be said of Canadair. Here is a company we picked up as the federal Liberal government. We said it needs help, it needs some direction and money for support. We gave it support and now it is highly successful, but they say, with some kind of crazy economics, "Now that it is successful, we will give it back to the private sector and let someone else profit rather than the taxpayers of Canada."
One other economic issue of some importance to me, coming as I do from metropolitan Toronto, is the so-called mortgage interest tax deduction program. That program has now been switched to a mortgage interest tax credit. In my view, that is a positive step. Their original plan would have meant that the richer you are, if you hold a mortgage the more you will get. Now it means you will all get the same amount. I must admit that must come as some disappointment to some of the folks who voted Conservative and, after adding and subtracting, figured they would get as much as $4,000 or $5,000. Now the maximum they will get is $1,500 after the program is phased in.
Of much more concern to me, however, are those people who rent, the old and middle-aged people who worked hard to pay off their mortgages. Of much more concern to me in my constituency are the many thousands of Canadians who have built their homes here, particularly when I think of the Italian Canadian community and others who, very quickly, believing it was fundamental to their family life to have their home paid for, paid off their mortgages in less than ten years, pooling their resources, working hard, scrubbing floors, putting up brick walls, helping to build our cities. They will get nothing out of this program, and yet it is the major offering to the Canadian public, so far as getting any money back is concerned. Where will all that money come from to pay back the terrible deficits which this government says we have created?
October 17, 1979

Perhaps I have said enough about economics, unless one considers the Jerusalem embassy issue an economic one. 1 do not know how, at least in part, it can be considered anything else. Surely the kindest thing which can be said about that whole terrible mess and all its consequences is that it was an ill thought out decision of no real aid to Israel. Perhaps in the long term it would be against the interests of Israel. Certainly it has caused us great trouble in the Arab world. How many millions or billions have we lost? When they talked about the policy of moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, I heard nothing about the much touted promise of the previous Conservative opposition that when taking government they would bring down a tough Arab boycott bill, that they would really do something. I wonder if anyone else has heard anything about that.
The government I supported put forward a bill which the Jewish community that supports Israel directly, and generally the Canadian community, found to be a reasonable approach. It was a guarantee that certainly we were not going to allow any discrimination against people because of their faith or interest in Israel. Certainly if that happened, it would be public and it would be castigated. There would be pressure against the people who might do that. All of a sudden with respect to something about which there was not enough before, we have heard nothing since.
We had the promise of an open government. Certainly for five months there was no Parliament. Now we have a Parliament, and when we finally get to Parliament what has the spokesman for open government and his supporters done? I gather they talked it over. 1 hope they talked it over before the Prime Minister said to Newfoundland that, even though the federal government and that province argued before, even though there was an agreement with the maritime provinces, and even though there was a test case regarding the west coast in the supreme court, the resources were theirs-"Newfoundland, here you go". After having said to the west coast, "Although we have some problems, British Columbia, here you go", he thought he might as well say it to the maritimes as well.
So there is the open government; there is the better use of Parliament. There was no reference to Parliament, no constitutional meeting. If it was open, at least we would know if they talked it over with Bill Davis. Did they talk it over with Hatfield? Did they talk it over with the Manitoba government? They are all good Conservative regimes. From what I know, no. That is our new open government. What about basic constitutional reform? I do not think anyone in the House would deny the people of Newfoundland maximizing what is justly theirs under the constitution. But the fiscal powers, and some basic interest to make sure that the fundamentals of one nation and the equality of all people in that nation are maintained, must be retained for the central government, the government of all Canadians.
When we talk about open government we should remember that two-thirds of the cabinet are locked out of the inner
The Address-Mr. Fleming
cabinet. That is not a very open government. Coming from Toronto I should like to ask where is Toronto in this inner cabinet? Where is Manitoba? My leader pointed that out very well. Where is New Brunswick in that inner group? We have had a tough season in Toronto, aside from my party having lost some seats, which is perhaps a non-objective comment. But the Argos have not been doing very well, the Argos wearing their blue. The Blue Jays wearing their blue have not done very well, and now we have the blue Tory ministers, all of them second string. Poor Toronto is not doing very well, although I have some hope for the Argos. Hope springs eternal, and I have some long range hope for the Blue Jays.


An hon. Member:: What about the blue maple leaf?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I do not know about those three fellows from Toronto sitting on the outside. 1 do not know if they have a hope at all of getting into first place.
Then there is Petro-Canada. I see we have brought hon. members opposite to life a little. That always encourages me. They will not disband Petro-Canada; they will simply cut off its arms and legs. Well, they will keep the high risk part in order to go out and spend money that others will not spend in frontier areas and to develop the tar sands and to find the technology to give us a real assurance of energy supply for the future. They will keep that part and sell off the profitable part. Meanwhile they con the public by giving them free shares. It looks like that will happen. After that the little guy will have a few shares. He can watch them go up as his taxes and energy costs go up. Then the big guy will buy shares. He will buy shares and make profits, and we will have a great Canadian company! Is that not wonderful? It is, but what about energy prices for average Canadians? What about pensioners trying to heat their homes? What about poor people? Where is our expertise, which we cannot just have in the high risk portion, to know the entire market place, to know whether we are being conned by some of those multinationals? It is gone.
I guess we have heard a great deal about Petro-Canada. Perhaps members on both sides are becoming tired of hearing the word. I do not believe anyone can say that the retention of Pacific Pete, the Atlantic Richfield portion, the profitable part, will harm the Canadian public. After messing up Jerusalem, after changing all their financial proposals, after keeping Liberal policies which they frowned on for months and years, how can they say finally that they will show guts by taking up that policy on a fundamental issue of interest to all Canadians, which I am sure no one can deny? It is madness. If it is madness today, then it will be a lot more madness a year or two down the road when this Parliament finds itself back in an election. Woe is the day as that story unravels for that party and that government. As that tragedy unravels, woe is the day for the Canadian public.
Even Bill Davis is shaking in his boots today. A couple of months ago Mr. Davis went out with his animated face and charged around the province of Ontario supporting the new Prime Minister. We know that he must be sitting quietly at home now, perhaps with a glass of brandy in one hand,

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Fleming
wondering if everything in his past has been all that correct and wise.
I have said enough about Petro-Canada, but before I pass on to another topic I should like to make reference to Foothills. It was to provide $1.5 billion to $2 billion and tens of thousands of jobs for Canada. Apparently over the period of three months no minister, no prime minister, or no senior official had a meeting with Foothills. During the months of June, July and August there were no meetings in the new government over a major Canadian economic need. It was a matter that was by no means assured. Everyone watching the United States knew the confrontation between the executive and the legislative branch and did not think for a moment that it should not be watched. They knew there was public relations and leaning and pushing to do. The Conservative government, the experts on business, the ones who want privatization, did nothing over three months. Zip, it went out the window, and, "gosh, oh golly, shucks," another one is gone. If one looks at Japan, apparently Japan is out the window.
We have read about Argentina in the last few weeks. We have read about the Middle East and the Mexican deal. There was to be a meeting in September, and the Prime Minister made a joke. Somebody said, "Postponed or cancelled?" The Prime Minister said, "No, just postponed until next year". I do not know if we will be on our feet economically next year if this kind of record continues.
1 have finished my comments about the government generally, but I should like to move to a more positive and hopeful tone, the field of culture. I mean that sincerely. 1 want to congratulate the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. MacDonald). He is not here today, he is away at a conference with his provincial counterparts who have responsibilities for communications. I want to pay my respects. In the cultural community he is considered progressive. Last November 1 believe he indicated in the budget speech five or six budgetary proposals which he said were commitments of his party to assist the Canadian cultural community if they got into office. He and his committee on culture moved across the country last year. I believe it showed a real desire to make some progress. In that speech the then hon. member for Egmont said the following:
Our institutions of culture are starved for funding ... such neglect of our culture ... can only seriously jeopardize the well-being of this nation. We must bring a new vigour to federal responsibility.
If one honestly cared about one's country and is a critic in that area, then one would look forward to new vigour. I know of the minister's sincerity. I would call him a progressive more than a conservative in his interests in the field of culture, but he is not a superman. He is not faster than a speeding bullet. He cannot leap tall buildings in one bound. Also, he is the inner cabinet minister for social policy. What is that? Is it medicare? Do we have problems with medicare? Is there slippage? Will it not be universal any more? He is responsible for that in the inner cabinet. Also native interests are major responsibilities. There are big problems to be solved fairly. Also I gather that pensions will come under his inner cabinet

responsibilities. What about indexing? Are we not to have indexing? Will we fight to keep indexing so that old people will not have less and less each year? What about social assistance? He has all of that to handle, as well as communications. There are staggering challenges over satellites, cable television, Pay TV, interconnections, super stations, and the future of the CRTC and its ability to cope. He is faced with all of those challenges. Then we come to the field of culture where he says we need new vigour.
Then we have the CBC. Do we have problems with the CBC? Do we have problems with the CBC! Then we have the National Film Board, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council, with all its implications, the National Museums, the National Gallery, which is very important, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the National Library, as well as publishing policy and recording policy. On and on the list goes, with one human being to deal with them all. No matter how progressive or how capable, how can he do it? Why when they have 137 members, and 1 mean this genuinely, with some very competent people in the back benches, is it necessary? Is he the only progressive man, in the Prime Minister's mind? Is this one of the few red Tories holding on? I hope that is not the case. I want good things in the cultural area, but why is one minister trying to cope with so much? He is a man who does care and understand.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He is so good.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Well, we will find out in time. I think that is arrogance on the part of this inner cabinet minister who suggests he is so good, and he is so good. He is so good there is no room for the others I think are very good and should be there.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, my colleague.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I quite understood the "so good" minister.
Let me take a moment now to deal with the parliamentary enquiry that was very vaguely referred to in the throne speech. We do not know if it will be a joint parliamentary enquiry of the Senate and the Commons, though I have heard it will be that, I believe in a speech by the new Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. The idea of putting all the cultural fields together, reviewing things and straightening it all out, is something that everyone who is involved in the area has been calling for now for a year or two. I know the previous secretary of state made several major efforts at putting them together. I have real concern in a minority Parliament whether this can be competently and thoughtfully done when we are faced with the workload and the challenges we have here.
Of equal concern is the fear that while the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications may feel that is a productive route, and that demonstrates democratization and the open government concept they want to prove, it may be very dangerous, indeed, when the minister who just interjected
October 17, 1979

a moment ago can go in and argue as President of the Treasury Board that it is under study and they do not need any more money. Remember, it was the Secretary of State who said a year ago that they were starving. Let us not continue that starvation. We take him at his word, but is that not a good excuse? That is what I am afraid of, that he will say they are having a study and that they should not be given any money until that study is completed. How long will that study take, and how much more critical will the situation become? The Secretary of State has said the situation is critical.
Let me take a moment to talk about this suggestion about starvation for funding. 1 asked my first question of the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications last week and he very proudly, when I questioned the heavy burden he had, responded that he had found $2 million more for the Canada Council. That was not responding to the question. 1 am very pleased about the $2 million, as I know it is a breath of air for them, but it is still $6 million to $7 million less than they would have had without restraint. It was the previous government that I supported that brought in restraint. While 1 was in support of that government, I also criticized it in committee for the extent of the restraint. I support the new minister in giving them more assistance.
If that is $2 million more, whatever happened to that $24 million the previous secretary of state, Mr. Roberts, promised from Loto Canada funds? We now hear that the total deal back is $24 million, and that is for sports and culture. If we have half of that, that is $12 million, and $12 million and $2 million is $14 million, we end up with a net loss of $10 million, and that is for the cultural community. But I will bet anything 1 can bet that it is not going to be $12 million. My hint for that was in a letter I received in response to a letter I sent to the Secretary of State. In that letter of September 19 he said:
The net result will be increased revenues available from Canadian lotteries for the support of sports and cultural activity. That these new funds will be realized primarily at the provincial level is in my opinion a most positive development toward encouraging more active provincial participation in cultural support.
I agree, the provinces have to do more. Of course they do. He seems to be saying there will be more money, but not here. He seems to be suggesting it is for the provinces. More money for the provinces is good, but he says we are starving here, suggesting that the Canada Council and all those other agencies are starving. This letter seems to suggest less money, not more money, and I think the cultural community, which has some faith in this new minister, deserves an answer. Is the amount to be $10 million less, $12 million less or $14 million less? If it is $10 million more I will be very happy and the first to congratulate the new minister. However, I have my fears about that.
The proposals of November, 1978, put forward by the new Secretary of State, included expanding the 100 per cent capital cost allowance for publishing and recording. I argued, as I did under a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 last week, that he said last November these firmly would be budgetary proposals if they formed the government. They formed the government early last May, or early last June, and they have had
The Address-Mr. Fleming
five months to introduce them. We still do not know the budget date, but there is no secret about these things. That party promised them. We have a starved cultural community. Why not bring them in or bring them forward for discussion in committee so we can find out if they will work? They may not work, but I would like to find out about them. I want to be positive, but why put them off and then say they are starving?
I do not think that is fair to a community that holds hope in this minister. I do not think this was rhetoric in opposition. Perhaps the problem is that he cannot get his colleagues to move. If he cannot, 1 want to point out that there is a problem.
I want to talk for a moment, if I may, about the suggestions contained in the minister's speeches when he was a member of the opposition and the critic of the then secretary of state. He seemed to suggest that he would regionalize the National Film Board and the Canada Council. I have heard around and about, in talking to people and in interviewing them, in an attempt to pick up the best knowledge I can about this area in addition to what I have learned over the years as a member of Parliament, that he has abandoned that. I hope he has, because strong regions do not have to mean a weakening of the middle, and if they do mean a weakening of the middle I think that is catastrophic. I hope that is not the direction he is going.
There are some specific areas in respect of which I want to put some questions on the record. Let me refer to the area of copyright. My colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd) very forcefully made the point during the throne speech debate yesterday that for 50 years, and to the discredit of the previous government as well, no changes have been made in the Copyright Act. He referred to all the disadvantages it creates for our authors when we are trying to spur our Canadian authors and to build Canadian talent. Some real efforts were made by the last secretary of state. I know a lot was happening in his office to press the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, where the responsibility lies, for some action in this regard. I simply want to say that while our committee has not formally reached an agreement on that policy, and this involves simply a matter of finding the time in the first few weeks, I agree entirely with my colleague, and I hope we will move in that direction. I hope we can pressure the government into moving in that direction.
Again a major area of criticism by the new Secretary of State was in respect of copyright and the lack of action. He has been the Secretary of State for almost six months. In looking at 80 new bills on the order paper, some of them not so new, 1 see nothing about copyright.
Let me refer to voluntary action, an area of concern and the responsibility of the Secretary of State. We read in the papers that Ken Dryden has left the nets to do a little protective work. Perhaps I should be more positive. He has left to do some investigative work in the voluntary action area. He is going to head up a task force on voluntary action. When we call the department we are told they know nothing about it. There are no terms of reference, and they have not seen Mr. Dryden.
There was a task force on voluntary action several years ago. I simply want to encourage the Secretary of State, with

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. R. Richardson
the support of his government, to move quickly on this. I have some agreement with members opposite that good work can be done in the voluntary sector, and it is time we found out about these concerns. It is time we found out specifically whether lotteries, for instance, have distorted the ability of the voluntary sector.
1 asked questions on that of the last government. I have written to the new Secretary of State, and I am very pleased that he has replied saying he shares these concerns and will be pleased to explore this issue more fully. He is going to take it up with his cabinet colleagues. He has asked for my suggestions, and I have suggested he certainly should look into the social impact of lotteries.
Finally, in conclusion, I simply want to say culture is not an airy-fairy issue; it is the reality of Canada. Of course the regions have to maximize and reflect the reality to themselves, but we are more than regions and we are more than a community of communities. We are a nation, and each part of Canada helps to make up the greatness of the total, but each part must better learn of, understand, and appreciate the other parts. It is the sharing of the richness of diversity that leads to national maturity. It is the assurance of the opportunity for excellence to develop anywhere that guarantees artistic and cultural opportunity everywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robin Richardson (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, may I first most sincerely congratulate you on the unanimous selection of yourself for a difficult but most important post. I can think of no better person for this most respected position during what I am certain all hon. members will work for and pray will be a Parliament of Reconciliation." I pledge to you my co-operation in this essential task.
Next, I extend the traditional and very sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I should also like to refer to my predecessor, the member for the riding of Greenwood, Mr. Andrew Brewin, and pay a tribute to him. Mr. Brewin is a very fine gentleman, a respected parliamentarian who represented my district for 17 years and, in my opinion, he is a compassionate man and a great Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robin Mark Richardson: I hope to hold a reception for him later this year here on the Parliament Hill he loved so well, to which all of his many friends will be invited. I should like this House to know that Andrew Brewin is held in high regard and affection by many who, like myself, do not happen to share his political views.
I should also like to express my personal tribute to the memory of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker who was well known to the Richardson family. As some hon. members

would know, my uncle, Burt Richardson, was Mr. Diefenbak-er's chief of staff for several years in the early 1960's. Mr. Diefenbaker was a man of great moral integrity and personal courage-a man of strong Christian conviction-and my only regret is that I did not have the privilege to sit in this House with him as a member of this Thirty-first Parliament.
My sadness at the passing of Mr. Diefenbaker is only the human feeling of realizing a great man and former prime minister of the Canada we love is no longer with us. It is more than overcome by the knowledge that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and leader of this Progressive Conservative government is equally a man of great moral integrity and personal courage, who is willing and able to take the tough actions necessary to ensure a safe, prosperous and united Canada for all Canadians in the days, months and years ahead.
I propose in this speech, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the prospects for Canadian peace and prosperity raised in the Speech from the Throne and, in particular, to challenge all hon. members to work together to help restore morality and a sense of true values to public affairs. After all, Mr. Speaker, Parliament is the central forum of our country. It should set the tone of public life since its decisions are felt by every Canadian. Our greatest challenge, individually and collectively as members of Parliament, is to help rebuild public respect and confidence in government.
First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few general remarks. At a moment like this when I am giving my first speech in this historic Parliament, I naturally think of the people in my own constituency. I think of the people of Beaches, as I am sure other hon. members think of their constituents, as the salt of the earth, and I hope I can justify the confidence they have placed in me as their federal representative.
I think particularly, Mr. Speaker, of the many people I met during the past two years of campaigning as I called from house to house, who have experienced and are experiencing the devastating effects of prolonged inflation. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the retired people trying to live on limited pensions, the working men and women whose life savings arc being destroyed, the homemakers who face soaring food prices, the homeowners, merchants and other small business entrepreneurs who are being devastated by high interest rates, and the young people who are facing very uncertain job prospects.
I think also, Mr. Speaker, of the many people I met who are fed up with politics and government. I am sure other hon. members experienced the same thing. They are the people who are dismayed by corruption and scandal in high places; sick of being bought off with their own money; distressed and discouraged at red tape and remoteness of government, and downright angry about the taxes which now account at all levels of government for almost 50 per cent of all the earned income in Canada. Fifty per cent, Mr. Speaker! God only asks for 10 per cent; Caesar and his legions are not so easily satisfied.

Who can deny, Mr. Speaker, that these are darkening days? The smaller this world grows, the more it seems to fly apart. There are wars and rumours of war; hot wars, cold wars, bush wars, and economic wars. There is famine and hunger, disease and suffering, strife and turmoil. There is financial uncertainty bordering on chaos that could serve as the prelude to an awful worldwide depression with its untold misery. The threat of nuclear holocaust is constantly with us. It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that "the distress of nations" is upon us.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that primarily inflation is a moral and political problem. Have we in this House the imagination to see that it is a threat to the political, social, and moral character of our society? Do we not see that the confiscation of capital, income and savings that results from inflation provided some politicians and bureaucrats with the excuse to trespass into many areas of our lives, and curtail freedoms? Have we not perhaps now come to the point in our history where, in a very real sense, "democracy in deficit" is descriptive of both our economic plight and possibly of our political future, unless we are willing to act with courage and conviction to resolve our problems?
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of this Thirty-first Parliament and, in particular, of this new Progressive Conservative government that is facing up to these very real challenges. I trust that we all in this House perceive the need to work together, regardless of political party affiliation, to support the initiatives set out in the Speech from the Throne. We must work together, regardless of party affiliation, on the foreign policy review, on the basic reform of Parliament, and on ways to balance the budget. We must address the crucial moral issues at the heart of the human dilemma today-social justice at home and abroad, the right to life, the problem of inflation. We must come to grips with what we are all about as individuals and as a nation.
Our failure in the past as a society, and our failure specifically here in Parliament, has been to articulate our national goals and preserve our individual values in attaining them. It is this failure, Mr. Speaker, that has led to the broad sense of disillusionment amongst the Canadian people today.
1 represent many Canadian people who wish to be governed by a righteous and God-fearing Parliament. As many hon. members may be aware, Christians all over Canada have been praying for each one of you personally in the hope that men and women of God would be making the laws of the land. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a yardstick by which to measure our effectiveness. That measuring device is God's Word. We must search for a biblical basis for civil government.
As a professional economist and businessman 1 have said much, and 1 will say more at a later time, about the primary cause of our inflation, which is government itself. But, Mr. Speaker, as a Christian and as a concerned Canadian, I am convinced that not all of Canada's problems are economic. Many are moral and spiritual. Indeed, both the human spirit and the national soul may perhaps be more in need of repair than the federal budget.
The Address-Mr. R. Richardson
I believe the bible to be true, Mr. Speaker, when it states in second Chronicles 7:14 God's promise as follows:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins and will heal their lands.
What more do we need to encourage us, to motivate us, than to become active working together in the healing of our land? Mr. Speaker, I may sound like a voice crying in the wilderness, but I know for a fact that this Thirty-first Parliament has many others of like faith.
I am excited, Mr. Speaker, by much of what I have seen since the May 22 election, and I am very optimistic about our country's future because of the leadership I know will be given by hon. members in this "Parliament of Reconciliation." Our individual and national response to the desperate plight of the Vietnamese boat people, and the support received from hon. members on both sides of the House, is a very encouraging sign of what can be achieved by this Parliament as a positive witness to our fellow Canadians and to the world. Canadians have had enough of meanness and pettiness. What they want from us, Mr. Speaker, is leadership, and the true essence of leadership is service to others.
It is a fact that Canada, more than any other nation in the world, is blessed with abundant resources, good, hard working, and law abiding people, and a huge potential. As the Prime Minister has so properly said, "It is a time to build". I believe that in our Prime Minister we have an enlightened leader who has the courage of his convictions to uphold an unpopular stance in the name of the future good. He has given a positive indication in his response to the debate on the Speech from the Throne that we are and will continue to move firmly to correct those things which have been holding us back individually and collectively from meeting our God-given potential in this country. Although he would perhaps not use the same words as I, the Prime Minister has challenged us all, whether we be members of Parliament or individual Canadian citizens, to participate in this building of Canada with energy and skill; to stand fast in our faith; to fight the good fight; to be consistent in our good works, with love and understanding-"like the yeast that leavens the loaf and raises the level of all it touches".
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Mr. Speaker, what a tremendous transformation would occur if the golden rule were applied to politics and government. Can you imagine the change that would be wrought? No more political campaigns based on "victory at any price by any means"; no more dog-eat-dog tactics; no more under-the-table deals; no more false witness; no more ego trips for self-centred purposes. Where there is animosity, there would be love; where there is greed, there would be generosity and compassion. Patience would take the place of anger, and service would rise above self.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully recommend to this House that one small thing we might do to signal a new direction to the people of Canada would be to allow the general public to enter this chamber while we are conducting daily prayers. It would

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Malepart
certainly do no harm, and might even prove inspirational to some Canadians to see their members of Parliament humbling themselves before God on a daily basis, asking Him for His divine guidance.
Especially in these times, Mr. Speaker, when Canada stands at the political, economic, and spiritual crossroads, the challenges facing this Parliament are very important and can be exciting and rewarding too, not in the monetary or status-seeking way, but in the knowledge that we in this House of Commons are doing our part to build Canada so that some day it might truly be said of this land that "... His dominion shall be from sea even to sea ..."
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the challenge set out by our Fathers of Confederation was to build a nation in keeping with basic Christian principles. What began with them as a step of faith more than a century ago has proven to be a continuing test of faith ever since. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is both a challenge and a sacred obligation for the hon. members of this House to work together in the healing of our land at this time of unparalleled opportunity.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of the House and to congratulate all hon. members on their election to the House. I also want to thank all the voters in the riding of Sainte-Marie who put their confidence in me. What confidence! All other candidates lost their deposit!
Mr. Speaker, having read the Speech from the Throne, 1 have to admit that I found it very deceiving. I expected that this Progressive Conservative government, after spending 16 years in opposition claiming that it had the solutions to all our problems, would present after five months in office something other than words and pious wishes. I admit that I am deeply worried about the two million senior citizens who built this country, about the 700,000 unemployed and those who will join their ranks, and about the seven million Canadians whose income is below $10,000 because the government offers them little if anything at all.
The formation of the inner cabinet was one of the first moves made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). This category of Canadians about whom I am worried and who represent a high percentage of the population of Canada gets no consideration from this goverment. Indeed, the Prime Minister did not consider it appropriate to include in the inner cabinet the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander), and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey). Those three ministers should represent and defend the interests of the groups of Canadians they serve. It would be essential that those same ministers be present at the meetings where the main decisions are taken. I do not know why the Prime

Minister did that, whether it is because those three ministers are not competent enough or because he is simply not interested in those groups of citizens.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am convinced that if those ministers had indeed taken part in the meetings of the inner cabinet and spoken for the interests of citizens that their departments serve, the Prime Minister would certainly not contemplate increasing so quickly the price of oil. I may indicate that the first victims of that increase will be the lower income group and not the industry that can pass on this hike to those same people. Moreover, those ministers would certainly not have let the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) cut 60,000 jobs in the public service thereby increasing the number of unemployed. I would like to know on which studies the government based itself to reduce the number of civil servants by
60,000.	Can the President of the Treasury Board tell or assure the House that services offered to the public will not suffer from these cutbacks? How are we to know that there are not only 10,000 public servants too many? I trust that the decision to cut 60,000 public service jobs was not taken the day the Prime Minister decided to move the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem, because that was not his best day.
As stated in the throne speech, the government hopes to solve unemployment and create jobs by relying on the private sector. It should know that the private sector has long since had the opportunity to create jobs aided by government grants, with the result that there are now 700,000 unemployed. We have a lot to look forward to! 1 believe the government is wrong in relying only on multinationals and small and medium business, because we all know that their prime motive is profit and not job creation. One has only to consider the action taken by such companies as ITT, Cadbury, Sun Life and many others which could not care less about the workers. Often, Mr. Speaker, when governments give grants to corporations in order for them to modernize their equipment, there does not result in any new jobs. I will give you as an example a bakery with equipment producing 100 loaves of bread a minute; after receiving a grant from the federal government, they bought new equipment capable of producing 400 loaves a minute. The result is that you have only one operator instead of four, and three unemployed.
Furthermore, the Minister of Employment and Immigration decided to cut the Canada Works programs. That is unfortunate because it was one of the rare programs where the government put faith in the ordinary citizen. I hope that decision will be reviewed because in addition to creating jobs that program provided services meeting the needs of the people, particularly senior citizens. The government should also review the policy to help businesses so it will really help create employment.
Mr. Speaker, I want also draw the attention of this House to the tax credits for home owners announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). That is an unfair decision because
October 17, 1979

there is nothing for tenants. Instead, the Government of Canada in co-operation with the provinces should have examined the possibility of establishing an over-all housing policy to help middle income workers to own a home and low income people to have decent housing through a tenant subsidy.
If you look at Statistics Canada figures for 1976, you will see that there are in Canada four million home owners versus two million tenants. If you look at the provincial breakdown there are 1,676,000 owners and 958,000 tenants in Ontario versus 953,000 owners and 940,000 tenants in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, after reading those figures, you see the government's mortgage tax credit policy is unfair to Quebec where the rate of ownership is low. Furthermore, it is also unfair to senior citizens because most of them who own a house paid off their mortgages long ago. Indeed, in an article in the newspaper La Presse of Wednesday, October 3, one can read, and I quote:
The Canadian Council on Social Development feels the interest and property tax credit program announced by the Clark government will have a very detrimental impact if it is not further improved to include low income Canadians.
In a press conference yesterday in Ottawa, Director General Pierre Bourdon urged the government to amend its program to correct its three great weaknesses which he identified as follows:
-	no advantage for tenants, who account for 37 per cent of the population;
-	a maximum tax credit of $260 after four years for families at the bottom of the income scale ($10,000 to $15,000), compared with $900 for those with an income of $30,000;
-nothing except the maximum property tax credit of $250 for owners of older houses and for rural families with large properties and low incomes.
It would have been desirable, Mr. Speaker, so as to enable middle-income Canadians to purchase a home, for the government to amend the policy of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which guarantees loans only for the purchase of single-family dwellings and duplexes. I refer, for instance, to the city of Montreal where the majority of houses have three floors and three or four units. If the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation could authorize guaranteed loans for these properties, we could increase the number of homeowners in Montreal, where there are now only 353,000 homeowners compared with 571,000 tenants.
As evidence of the importance of the loans guaranteed by the CMHC, if a middle-income citizen wants to buy a property evaluated at $50,000, he can obtain a 90 per cent loan guaranteed by the CMHC, which represents a mortgage of $45,000 and which means that he need only make a deposit of $5,000. However, if the loan is not guaranteed by the CMHC, he can only obtain 75 per cent ot the value ot the property, or $37,500, and must make a deposit of $12,500, which means a difference in capital of $7,500.
I also take the liberty to say to the Minister of Finance that he did not have a very good argument when he answered a reporter who told him that his policy offered nothing to tenants. He made the following answer and I quote the newspaper Le Devoir of Tuesday September 18:
The Address-Mr. Malepart
Furthermore, the Minister of Finance gives nothing to the 4.5 million tenant families because "nothing was promised to them", he said.
We cannot say it is a very brilliant answer.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne refers to the creation of a social development ministry that will ensure better co-ordination of programs and spending in that sector. As I see it described in the Speech from the Throne and dreamed up by the Conservative party I suggest that this ministry will be responsible for reducing important services given to the people and not for improving the living conditions of small income citizens. However, that department has the responsibility to study thoroughy social programs of the federal and provincial governments such as the veterans pension, the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, federal and provincial family allowances, tax credit for children, social welfare, social housing, school taxes, all those programs financed from taxes.
There are also programs paid by workers on top of their income tax, including the Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, automobile insurance and work income supplement in Quebec and, in other provinces, private pension plans. There is also the Workmen's Compensation Board which is financed by companies. In fact, if we study all those programs to establish a guaranteed income policy allowing small income citizens to obtain higher allowances, I entirely agree.
Mr. Speaker, these days much is said about the proposed dismantling of Petro-Canada by selling stocks to Canadians. I believe that this decision is a real joke for small income citizens. What about older people who have only the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement? Single persons get only $325.95 a month and a couple $602.44 a month. What about people who depend on welfare-in Quebec a single person gets only $276 a month and a couple $439? What about people living on minimum wage who get only $3.47 an hour in Quebec, which adds up to $555.20 a month before taxes, not to mention the 700,000 unemployed who get from $480 to $550 a month? What do you think those citizens are going to do with two oil shares? Their first reaction will be to sell their shares to the rich, so they can eat. In a matter of months they will be the losers, because the new shareholders will ask the government to raise oil prices and subsidize their operations. Those will be the facts.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reference in the throne speech to parliamentary reform, and I quote:
You will also be asked to consider reforms to extend the power of Parliament. Proposals will be submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to strengthen the powers and resources of parliamentary committees, to accord more prominence to private members' initiatives, and to make my ministers more accountable to you. The standing committee also will be invited to consider the question of a permanent Speaker for the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, how can I believe in those reforms to give more powers to members of Parliament? How can the Prime

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
Minister say such a thing, when he himself took powers away from his own members and even made "back-bencher" or second-class ministers by establishing an inner cabinet to control the whole cabinet? To quote from the press release issued by the Prime Minister's Office:
Mr. Clark has announced that the reorganization of cabinet included the establishment of a main cabinet committee overseeing five policy sub-committees. The major policies of government will be developed mainly by that group.
And we note the absence of ministers to represent the majority of the people.
The main cabinet committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, will develop government priorities and take decisions on major policy aspects stemming from those priorities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, here are two documents both signed by the government, two documents which contradict one another. That is why I am anxious to see that reform. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we are to improve the standard of living for people with low income, who are always the first to be affected by any increase in the cost of living, we will have, first, to prevent any further increase in oil prices; second, establish a policy to give subsidies to tenants; third, maintain and improve Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs; fourth, review all CMHC's programs; fifth, stop all cuts in unemployment benefits; sixth, study the possibility of allowing any citizen to retire and get old age benefits at the age of 60; and, seventh, establish a guaranteed minimum income plan.


Mr. Eric Ferguson (Saint John):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate in this the first session of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada. I wish to congratulate you, sir, on your election as Speaker of this House. Your fairness and skill in carrying out your duties are well known across Canada.
Furthermore, I am delighted to congratulate the mover and seconder to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) displayed a concern for their constituencies and for Canada which, I hope, will set the tone for this session of Parliament. I would also like to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) for his success on May 22. I am pleased to be part of this new government.
I have come to this House of Commons with a record of nearly 28 years of service to the public, Yb'h years with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and four years as police chief for the city of Saint John, New Brunswick. Both careers were very satisfying to me. In many ways the Royal Canadian Mounted Police represents Canada to the rest of the world. My pride in being a member of that force remains undiminished and untarnished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric W. Ferguson: It is also a particular source of pride to me to be the first police chief of a major Canadian city to be elected to the House of Commons of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric W. Ferguson: Saint John, New Brunswick, has one of the oldest police forces in North America. It has the oldest police union in the world, having been organized in 1918. Unrest in municipal police departments captures headlines in the newspapers much too often. The reasons are much too complex to describe at this time. In my present role as a member of Parliament it is my fondest wish to use my knowledge in police work to alleviate some of the problems.
As a member of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs I was cognizant of the fact that resolutions received by the previous federal government were not given the attention they deserved. If in some way I, as a member of Parliament, can serve as a catalyst between the federal government and the police community, then I believe I will have served well.
I wish to thank the people of Saint John for having elected me. I hope I can maintain their confidence during my years in the House of Commons and serve my city and country to the best of my ability.
Mr. Speaker, I have come to Parliament to speak for the city of Saint John. I have come to speak for the factory workers, the drydock workers, for the office workers, for senior citizens and young people, for sailors and fishermen, for business and labour. Indeed, I have come to work for every citizen in the city of Saint John, and to work for Canada. I have come to speak, not with a noose in my back pocket or with a narcotic control act in my right hand, but, rather, I have come here with compassion and concern, a belief that things can be better, that we as members must do better, and I am prepared to work as hard as I am able to aid this government in bringing about necessary changes.
These necessary changes are ones which will improve the quality of life. We need, for example, to inquire into the needs of the disabled and handicapped, to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector, to extend spouses' allowances in certain circumstances, and to amend certain legislation respecting veterans. These are just a few of the programs to be considered as a means of improving life for Canadians. More will be brought in, more will be approved. More are required.
During the past five years Saint John, New Brunswick, has been the only city in Atlantic Canada where there has been a reduction in the number of federal government jobs. Indeed, in that period there has been no growth at all. In fact there has been a decrease. The previous federal government, starting in 1975, had set in motion a program designed to bankrupt the city in terms of federal positions. Thirty-seven jobs from the Department of Veterans Affairs are moving to Halifax, 77 jobs from Revenue Canada are going to St. John's, Newfoundland, and five positions in the Post Office Department are going to Halifax. I realize that this program had been set in
October 17, 1979

motion by the previous government between three and five years ago. To my mind it has been a bad decision. I have met with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon). 1 have met with the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Howie). Mr. Speaker, if nothing can be done about the program at this stage, I ask that steps be taken to compensate for the loss of these 119 jobs. During the recent campaign I attacked the previous administration for implementing this program. The people of Saint John are now looking to me for action.
The city of Saint John bid for the 1977 summer games. The federal government of the day appointed a three-member independent sports committee to inspect the various sites in respect of which application had been made for the games. This committee gave its unqualified support to Saint John, New Brunswick. The then mayor of Saint John, Mr. Robert Lockhart, the city council and Mr. Ev. Trites, chairman of the steering committee, worked very hard, along with other members of the committee, and Saint John itself spent in excess of $60,000 putting forward a presentation which had full support from the province of New Brunswick. But in the infinite wisdom of the previous administration, a political decision was made and announced, contrary to the recommendation of the independent study. The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), who was then the minister responsible, made this political announcement. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Saint John had worked their hearts out to get these games and they were all bitterly disappointed.
In 1985 Saint John will be celebrating its 200th birthday. In the same year New Brunswick has been designated to hold the summer games. To my mind there are many reasons for the games to be held in Saint John this time around, but the overriding reasons must be as follows: first, we want them in Saint John; second, the city and council have voted 100 per cent to have them there and are prepared to put up their share of the money; third, the games will provoke an unparalleled degree of community spirit which will do wonders for the city and, fourth, they will provide much-needed structures which will be of lasting benefit to the people. It will be an honour for us to welcome athletes from across the country who come to take part in the summer games of 1985. All these reasons are tremendously valid, but the overriding reasons for bringing the games to Saint John is because it will be our 200th birthday.
The Saint John harbour toll bridge in the centre of our city is a federal structure which has been plunging deeper and deeper into debt each year. This bridge was completed in September, 1968, at a cost of $18 million, and the interest on the debt in 1978 was $1.2 million. The cost of maintenance and expenses for the same year amounted to $600,000. The income from tolls in 1978 amounted to $1.3 million, leaving a net loss for the last operating year of $500,000. The total debt to date is now $26.8 million and rising.
1 should like to quote from a report to the House of Commons by the Auditor General, Mr. J. J. Macdonell, on March 31, 1977:
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
Revenues of the Saint John harbour bridge have been insufficient to meet principal and interest payments on the National Harbours Board loan and the advance from the Municipal Development and Loan Board. The miscellaneous loan from the Department of Finance was made to cover the shortfalls on repayments of principal and interest. In these circumstances, these loans cannot be regarded as fully collectible.
The province of New Brunswick has offered to assume the maintenance costs of the bridge provided a transfer of ownership occurs and the debt is forgiven. The bridge would then become an integral part of the provincial highway system. 1 would appeal the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) to forgive this debt and proceed with the transfer of ownership as soon as possible.
The port of Saint John has seen great growth in the past decade and hopes to double the present tonnage by the year 1990. I would like to express my gratitude to the hon. Richard B. Hatfield, Premier of New Brunswick, for his government's involvement in the construction of the Rodney terminal container pier. This is the only instance in Canadian history of a provincial government providing economic and political leadership in an area which is truly a federal responsibility. Had it not been for this involvement in the amount of $25 million, Saint John would surely have become a secondary port on the eastern seaboard. Indeed, we would not now be in the container business at all.
We in Saint John were pleased with the announcement by the Minister of State for Transport last June concerning a contract in excess of $13 million for port development. This expansion was very much needed and will allow our port to handle more goods more efficiently. Much more is required. With the development of great potash mines in the Sussex area only 50 miles from Saint John, terminal facilities are now required to handle the additional tonnage. The port of Saint John has an excellent labour force. We want to handle additional cargo, and I am sure the shippers we serve will be well satisfied with our performance.
My background dictates that I be concerned with the protection of human life. The time has long passed for a close investigation to be carried out not only in the port of Saint John but in every port across Canada to ensure that the safety of the workers is paramount. Too many deaths and serious injuries have taken place which could have been prevented had proper safeguards and security measures been implemented.
We have in the city of Saint John one of the best shipyards in Canada, if not the best. At the present time the yards employ in the vicinity of 1,800 people. The Saint John Dry-dock and Shipbuilding Company has the labour force, and the expertise which is required to ensure that Canada takes its rightful place in the world of super vessels. As set out in the throne speech, the Clark government will ensure an even flow of work to Canadian shipyards. This is the type of government program we welcome and encourage, one which builds on the strength of a region and promotes stability in our economy.
In order for Saint John Drydock and Shipbuilding to construct super vessels and carry out ship repairs which meet the

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
standards of world demand, it is necessary to undertake expansion of existing facilities. We are looking to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to aid us in this goal.
We in Saint John and Atlantic Canada have a real contribution to make to Canada and to confederation. We are blessed with a wealth of natural resources and resourceful talent. Atlantic Canada is strong. We have a fine history in shipbuilding, farming, forestry, mining and fishing. We have great sea ports, beautiful beaches, and unpolluted streams. We are a good people, and that is really our strength. We look to the federal government in Saint John and in the Atlantic region for leadership and encouragement to build upon our strengths. We look to the federal government for incentives to improve our economy and lifestyle.
It is important that collectively our citizens, business, labour, and government at all levels, work hand in hand to develop our area and to make opportunities available in order that our young people can stay at home if they so choose and take their rightful place in society.
The opportunities to develop a wide range of energy resources in Atlantic Canada are unparalleled. There is great opportunity to develop our coal reserves and to explore the concept of harnessing the beautiful Bay of Fundy tides, including wave energy. It is now for us to move with haste in development and research in this regard.
On the outskirts of Saint John there is Point Lepreau, a nuclear plant which is programmed to go into operation within the next 18 months. As in most areas in the country, in Saint John there is much concern about safety. 1 am pleased that this government will be setting up a parliamentary committee to study all aspects of nuclear power. For Canada today nuclear power is becoming one alternative to conventional fossil fuels. Safety at all times has to be the overriding concern.
1 am pleased that the government will form a youth employment secretariat. This will streamline all the federal programs under one department. Young people must have the opportunity to work and grow in this country. If the economic climate continues to affect young people from across the country adversely, we will sow seeds of disillusionment rather than seeds of hope. Every effort must be made to encourage job training and retraining for young people. This is mandatory in an ever-changing society.
In excess of 51 per cent of the people of this country are female. 1 am pleased that this government will place before parliament an employment strategy for women. Today only 3.5 per cent of the membership of the House of Commons are women. Not only have women been missing in significant numbers from the House of Commons, but they have also been missing from boardrooms, commissions, and the policy-making areas of our political system.


An hon. Member:: How many have you hired?


Eric W. Ferguson: I hired 12. In order to correct some of the injustices which have been done during the past ten years, a

masterful effort will be required. This Parliament must do everything possible to provide opportunities for women to take their rightful place in society. The figures regarding women and poverty are staggering. This must be changed.
In closing, I want to talk briefly about the senior citizens of Canada. I am one of those lucky Canadians whose mother is still living. She will be 91 on November 30. She runs her own home, and she is a great campaigner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric W. Ferguson: We must do everything possible to encourage our mothers, grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers. Every member of this House must keep in mind rising prices, rising interest rates and the effect they are having on senior citizens, most of whom are living on fixed incomes. We have an obligation and a responsibility. After all, they were the builders of this nation, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that each and every one can live in dignity.
We have much to be thankful for, and counting our blessings is not a bad motto. As a maritimer and as a Canadian I want our people to stay in this country and prosper and to build a future based on pride, dedication, and hard work. We in Saint John and all those from one end of this country to the other have the natural resources and the will to accomplish this goal. We have a great resource, our people, to meet this challenge, and there is no reason why our dreams cannot be carried to reality.


Mr. Lessard:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)):: Will the hon. member accept a question?


Eric W. Ferguson: Sure, I will accept a question.


Marcel Lessard: First I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John (Mr. Ferguson) on his speech and, in particular, on the delivery of his speech. Although I do not agree with everything he had to say, I want to compliment him on his well-delivered speech.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question. He stated that government programming has negatively affected Saint John and that roughly 200 people will be moving away, might be moving away, or might be affected. 1 would like to ask the hon. member if I would be fair in stating that through DREE and its programming, and by making Saint John a special area, the previous government contributed much to the development of Saint John, the city the hon. member is so proud to be representing here today. I had the pleasure to be in Saint John and to meet the hon. gentleman. Will he agree with me that DREE has contributed much to the well-being of his city?


Eric W. Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to be asked a question by the hon. gentleman. I did meet the hon. gentleman in Saint John, and it is a beautiful city.
October 17, 1979

Yes, DREE money has come in very handy in the city of Saint John, and we need more.
Second, the great concern we had during the previous administration was that even though much DREE money was spent in Saint John, it seems strange that there is not one person working in any DREE office in my home city of Saint John. We do not have a DREE office in Saint John. If we want to deal with DREE we have to drive to Moncton, 100 miles, or to Fredericton, 60 miles. Ours is the only maritime city where in the last five years there has been a decrease in the number of federal jobs, and that situation is continuing.
[ Translation]


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to congratulate you and your assistant on you appointments to these most important posts in the House. As this is my maiden speech, 1 should like to say something about my riding.
For a number of reasons I am proud to represent the Laurier constituency on Montreal Island. First of all, it is quite a privilege to sit as a member in the House of Commons, the highest legislative body in Canada. My constituency, named after the eighth Prime Minister of Canada, has been represented in the past by a long list of imposing personalities. For instance, it was ably represented during the last Parliament as well as the past 15 years by the hon. Fernand Leblanc, who has been appointed to the Senate. Senator Leblanc, like all those who had preceded him in the House, had always been close to his constituents. As a matter of fact, the people of this riding have always been privileged ever since it became a constituency in 1935. Their first representative was the Hon. E. Bertrand, a minister in the St. Laurent cabinet. After his appointment to the bench, he was replaced by the Hon. J. Eugene Lefran$ois, later appointed to the Senate, Its next representative was the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, a minister of transport in the Mackenzie King and St. Laurent governments, and both a minister of justice and solicitor general in the Pearson government. He was later appointed High Commissioner to London.
All those men served their country loyally and constantly. For the benefit of hon. members, 1 shall explain the geographic and demographic situation of the riding of Laurier. Located east of downtown Montreal, it extends from Park Avenue in the west to Papineau to the east, from Sherbrooke in the south to Bernard St. and the railway track in the north. Amongst its better known streets let us mention Laurier, St. Joseph, Parc La Fontaine, the commercial street, Mont-Royal, St. Denis, St. Louis Square and St. Laurent or the "Main", where traditionally east Montreal joins west Montreal. The population of the riding is 65 per cent Francophone and comprises several minorities of which the main one, numerically, is Portuguese. It also includes considerable numbers of Canadians of various origins: English, Greek, Spanish, Italian, Chinese and eastern European. In fact, every corner of the world is represented in the riding.
The Address-Mr. Berger
The riding has been and still is one of the areas where one of the larger numbers of immigrants settle; to my mind, it truly represents the Canadian mosaic. Some time ago, the riding had a fairly large number of Jewish people who were immortalized in the writings of Mordecai Richler. Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express all my gratitude to the people of the riding of Laurier for welcoming me so warmly as a candidate, and electing me with quite a large majority. I hope I shall prove worthy of the trust the riding has put in me.
Mr. Speaker, as a candidate taking his first few steps in the field of politics, I have noticed a mood of impatience amongst my electors, impatience with the governments at every level which take so long to find solutions to their problems. As an example of what I mean, 1 should like to describe the housing situation in my riding. Since the election 1 have received a great number of calls from people in their sixties who, after working for 40 years, want to move into low rental housing. These are often sick people who live in those three storey houses with outside staircases, typical of eastern Montreal. They can barely keep up their homes which are often badly heated. There is a lack of low rental housing in Montreal, as was noted in a newspaper article last spring, which stated that there were 9,000 such units which were occupied, with a waiting list of over 11,000.
A related problem is the shabbiness of these houses in general in my riding. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a residential rehabilitation assistance program administered by the city of Montreal. The need for such a program is self-evident because our downtown areas are in dire need of renovation. However the problems that I have noted in the implementation of this program put its adequacy in question.
Some low-income tenants-some of whom have been living in the same apartment for over 30 years while others are ill and even often handicapped-have been advised that their lease will be cancelled at some future date when government approval is obtained. The owners are unable to set the rental rates before undertaking the construction. The tenants doubt that the projects will ever be undertaken but feel that the owners will rather make some superficial repairs to take advantage of government subsidies at their expense. Tenants' associations have been set up to fight against those projects or suggest some alternatives.
Mr. Speaker, when tenants move and buildings become half empty, the services worsen. The owners say that present subsidies are not high enough to meet ever soaring construction costs, with the concrete result that rents are higher after repairs and this prevents some low-income tenants from moving back into their apartment. No step has been taken to relocate the tenants during construction. In addition, there is no co-ordination between that renewal program and provincial
318

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Berger
legislation on rental which does not even allow owners to cancel leases to make repairs. Consequently the parties enter into endless legal proceedings which bring no adequate solution. I welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister last week in this debate when he said that his government would undertake to launch studies if that could lead to better solutions than those proposed by the government. 1 urge him and his minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake a study on how this problem can be resolved as soon as possible and to refer that study to the appropriate House committee.
Mr. Speaker, unemployment is another major concern in my constituency. Not only are jobs needed, but the problem is even more far-reaching since we have to face structural unemployment. It seems to me that the young men and women graduating from high schools and community colleges do not have adequate education. They do not know how to find a job and they often have qualifications in fields where there is no job. I recall a few years ago 1 heard someone in the aviation industry say that his company badly needed aeronautical engineers. Unfortunately not one single student graduated from Quebec schools in that particular field that year. Cana-dair was faced with a similar problem; because of the success met by its Challenger operation in the last few years, it had to set up training programs for non-qualified labour.
Mr. Speaker, how could we fail to understand the growing impatience of a population faced with such permanent problems and unacceptable conditions such as the grain handlers strike in the port of Montreal, which has already been going on for five months, and a public transit strike which paralyses the whole city. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) were here, I would ask him how long he intends to wait before taking measures to put an end to the strike affecting the port of Montreal. That question has been put on several occasions in this House. We all know that we live in a great country whose wealth in natural resources is unparalleled and we should ask ourselves why nothing is done to solve these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the new government. It says that it is committed to efficiency and to cutting out waste. Important steps in the process of reform were initiated in the last Parliament, as has been acknowledged by a Conservative minister. But I am afraid that for the sake of satisfying its doctrinaire philosophy the government will cut out good programs and dismiss competent personnel. It has already done so. We are now losing a considerable amount of the expertise which has been assembled in Ottawa in the past 16 years.
The Anti-Inflation Board, while often criticized, accomplished much for which it will receive a general recognition in the future. During the summer I read a publication of the Board entitled "Inflation and Economic Policy", which I believe was distributed to all members of the House. The authors of the report stressed the limitations of economic policy. Because

of the slowness of the economy to respond to monetary and fiscal stimulus, they favour a policy of gradual expansion. Selective measures, they said, should be used to correct weaknesses in the economy, for example, to fight structural unemployment, to which I referred earlier, and to develop particular industries. This government, with its doctrinaire philosophy, has ignored this advice. Rather than improving programs that were developed after much research and consultation with experts in many fields, it has wastefully committed $2 billion annually for a housing program that everyone knows is not a housing program.
Another important program which has suffered from budget cuts is the Canada Works program which provided employment and tangible social services to my riding and many others with high unemployment. I have received dozens of calls, from distressed older persons in particular, who benefited from this program in the past and are at a loss to make do in the months ahead. I urge the government to restore the program to its original levels. Unfortunately I feel my words and those of my colleagues fall on deaf ears.
We in Quebec have been preoccupied with the referendum. It is part of our daily lives. Bill 101 has been confusing for many English Canadians in Quebec and across Canada who have difficulty reconciling the apparent contradiction of a unilingual Quebec with a bilingual Canada. Initiatives by the Parti Quebecois to shift the burden of bilingualism, as they put it, and to give Quebec a French face, have created tensions and led to economic loss and hardship. Some aspects of Bill 101 are clearly excessive and will be changed by a Liberal government, but English Canadians must recognize the concern which French Canadians have for the survival of the French language, as well as the economic consequences that language has for French Canadians to this day.
Most Canadians rebel at the thought of legally obliging children to attend French schools, yet in many cases French Canadians have always been forced to learn English in order to earn a living, which in effect amounts to the same thing. Furthermore, no matter what language legislation is adopted, or even if Quebec achieves independence, any French Canadian who wishes to advance in many areas of human endeavour will have to learn English.
Perhaps no aspect of Liberal policy was more controversial and misunderstood than the previous government's efforts to create a sense of belonging to Canada for French Canadians, and yet no policy was more vital to the survival of our country. I must confess that I have great difficulty in understanding the begrudging manner in which some English Canadians greet the French presence in our country. I am proud of our two principal languages. On a trip to Cape Breton Island some years ago I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of French villages along the coast which, in spite of all obstacles, had managed to keep their language, culture, and character. The French language outside of Quebec is like a precious flower Canadians must cherish.
October 17, 1979

The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), in a speech to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in Winnipeg in April, 1977, tried to explain the objectives of the government's language Policy. He said that sometimes he wished that the government had never described the official languages policy as "bilingualism", because the word apparently implied the intent that all Canadians learn two languages. Also he said:
Such is not our intent at all. What we have is simply a program for.. . greater equality between two languages, either one or the other of which is spoken by virtually every Canadian.
In trying to explain what language means to people he said:
Just as when you speak English, when a Quebecker speaks French it is something he does naturally and automatically-almost like breathing. That is precisely why language is so important: because when you limit a person's use of his language, it is almost like interfering with his breathing. When we cannot speak our own language, we feel stifled, a bit as if we are choking.
This speech was made several months after the election of the Parti Quebecois. Also our leader tried to explain why Quebeckers had voted as they did. He referred to the economic opportunities which had been denied to French Canadians in private industry. He tried to explain why the air traffic controllers dispute had become such a potent symbol to Quebeckers. He said that he felt it was in large part because the most visibly modern, future-oriented job sector of aviation seemed to be saying to Quebeckers that the tasks, in which other people all over the world are normally able to use their own language, are ones in which they may never look forward to using the French language in Quebec.
He stated that in Quebec the private sector would have to provide more opportunity for French Canadians to work hard and make decent progress using the French language only. On the national level, corporate business and other private organizations would have to make room for and share more power with the French Canadian who speaks English. Provincial and municipal governments would have to offer more administrative and educational services in French in areas where there were important French-speaking minorities. The federal government was quite willing to share costs in this respect. Our leader concluded by saying that our country could remain united only if French Canadians wished to and were able to participate fully in Canadian society.
It is evident that Mrs. Stephenson, the minister of education of Ontario, has not listened to these important words in refusing to establish a separate French school in Penetangui-shene because of the cost. Also it is evident that some of those industries which have left Quebec in the last several years did not hear these words or did not care to hear them. In the final analysis they have done a great disservice to our country.
Just last week Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages remarked that Canada must become a comfortable and acceptable homeland for French-speaking Canadians or the country will not survive. Mr. Yalden said:
Language reform is not an option for Canada, it is a basic requirement. Without it there will be no Canada, at least not as we have known it.
The Address-Mr. Berger
Notwithstanding the substantial efforts made by my leader and his government, we face today the greatest crisis in our history. It is a crisis which concerns all Canadians, not just those living in Quebec. In his remarks in this debate last week, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) stated that it was the duty of all members of this House to speak to the people of Quebec about a strong Canada and about maintaining our confederation. With all due respect, I believe that that duty extends to the rest of Canada as well. Each and every member of this House has the duty to explain the reality of this country to his constituents because, in the final analysis, as the Pepin-Robarts commission stated, it is only through a change in attitudes on the part of all Canadians that we will solve our national unity crisis. I have felt for some time that it is only through accommodation, generosity, vision, and will on the part of all Canadians, that Canada will survive and prosper.
But as our leader has pointed out, it seems that our language problem may be only one manifestation of a greater problem, a crisis of our national will. We are witnessing today the balkanization of our country where there is no national interest, just the interests of the provinces. The arguments of our leader are lightly dismissed as having no practical application by those scrambling aboard the bandwagon of decentralization. When our leader was prime minister he was often accused of being insensitive to the demands of certain parts of the country, and of seeing matters in only one light. I agree with the opinion expressed by a member of the government party last week when he said that the people of western Canada had judged our leader very harshly and that history will judge him with greater kindness and greater objectivity.
This country is not as easy to manage as the present government believed when it was in opposition. The solutions are not straightforward as they are now finding. I urge the right hon. Prime Minister not to dismiss the warnings of our leader out of hand. There are many, many Canadians who are now starting to ask, "What chance does Canada have?"
For those who feel that national interest has no practical application, I should like to remind the House of the impediments to the free movement of capital and labour which have been established in our country in recent years. During my election campaign I met a number of construction workers in my riding who were accustomed to working in Ontario when the industry was slow in Quebec. Thanks to the construction war between the two provinces they can no longer do so. I believe that is an area which falls within the domain of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander), and I would ask him to undertake everything possible to attempt to ensure that we restore the free movement of labour for the benefit of all Canadian workers.
If I may, I should like to suggest a policy which could provide inestimable benefits for the whole of Canada. Every Canadian knows that the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway was a vital element in establishing a country from coast to coast. It was essential to provide a cheap efficient system of transportation. The world today is struggling with the problem of providing sufficient energy for its needs while

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Berger
Canada is struggling to compete in world markets. In spite of our vast energy resources we are not divorced from this problem, as the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has found out in recent weeks and months.
Perhaps the profits from our energy resources should be devoted to developing a system of high speed intercity rail passenger transportation which would conserve energy and provide employment. Investment in such high technology areas would certainly reap dividends in exports as well. I believe Canada's subsidies for uneconomic passenger services for 1977 amounted to approximately $196 million. The United States will spend $800 million in fiscal 1979 in subsidies to Amtrack. For those people who think that is enough for a country of that size, I should like to point out the figures I have of subsidies for intercity rail passenger services in European countries and Japan. Britain spent $700 million in 1978, France spent $900 million, Italy spent $1.5 billion, and Japan spent $4.1 billion. Is it any wonder that North Americans, and more particularly Canadians, are the highest per capita users of energy in the world?
I, and others in this House, represent a generation of Canadians who grew up in the 1960s. We have heard for years and years of the greatness of Canada, about its potential, its people, its rich resources, its oceans, its farmlands and its cities. I would like to think that 1 might be able to say to this House on behalf of my generation that we feel it is time to act.
A Liberal colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), stated earlier in the week that it was embarrassing to have to admit to foreigners that our constitution is still in England. I agree with that feeling. It is time we patriated our constitution. It is time it was amended to give the provinces what is rightfully theirs, but also to provide for the national interest. We must put these matters behind us so that we can begin to realize our potential. We want leadership from this House and from our governments. I for one do not want to be sitting here 15 years from now rehashing the same arguments we have heard for the last ten years, especially on this side of the House.
In spite of the differences of opinion among the members of this House, we share a belief in the future of Canada. Sometimes we will have occasion to be discouraged, but that should not diminish our purpose. Some time ago I read a statement by Walter Cronkite which perhaps indicates why I am in this House today. I am sure that similar motives have spurred other members of this House, and I should like to read this. When asked what he would tell kids getting out of school today in an age when a diploma no longer has the clout it had, he said:
I tell them . .. that the challenges are so immense that it's an absolute crime and a sin not to get involved in attempting to meet these challenges, and to try to find solutions to the problems .. . one could be justifiably pessimistic about the state of the world and the survival of man ... (kids) can become very cynical. They can say, "Why fight it, let me get mine in any way I can", or drop out-but not fight the problems. But they've got to fight the problems and it should be a great adventure to fight the problems-that's what I try to tell them. It ought to be great to get out there and see if you can make the thing work.
[Mr. Berger.J
Let us face these challenges with confidence and resolve, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, permit me, sir, to express the pride I feel at being a small part of the new government and to participate here as the new member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona. With others here I have an opportunity not only to bring the concerns of my constituents to this body, but I hope as well to bring a little youthful idealism to some national issues.
Last week the opinion was expressed by an hon. member opposite that the Conservatives are so busy preaching what is right, they have forgotten what is good. I cannot accept, sir, the separation of that which is right from that which is good. This common sense principle has not, unfortunately, been applied in the governing of this country during the past years. The consequences of not having done so have been serious and have left the new government a legacy of urgent and threatening problems, problems which affect us not only as individual citizens, but as members of a free and democratic society.
The difficulties Canada faces today cannot, of course, be laid solely at the feet of past leadership. We are caught, along with the rest of the world, in the dilemmas of modern man. Ours is an age characterized by dissolution of tradition and old values. Ours is an age of unlimited expectation and increasingly limited means. Most crucially, we are in an age when it is not uncommon for those who govern, for those who administer the rules, to have lost faith in their own legitimacy.
Little wonder, then, that citizens question the legitimacy of rules. It is for this very reason, namely, to re-establish the trust and belief in the legitimacy of government, that the basis of governmental decision making must be rooted in what we believe is right rather than that which is merely expedient under the circumstances.
What is at stake in this kind of decision making is not Progressive Conservatism or Liberalism, or any other "party-ism", but the ability to think clearly about what can and cannot be done to resolve the problems Canada faces today.
The most imminent of such problems is the presence of chronic inflation, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the vast majority of my constituents, at least; inflation which wipes out savings, impoverishes pensioners, rewards speculators, punishes many hard-working citizens, discourages private investment and productivity, and hinders trade competitiveness.
Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of West Germany, has said that "inflation for economies is a killer disease". The symptoms of this disease are manifest both in a nation as a whole and in the workings of government. Inflation has also taken a toll on national morality. Witness the recklessness of consumer buying, the underlying insecurity, the loosening of responsibility at all levels of society, and the growing lack of respect for older pillars of society, including parents.
The symptoms of inflation are evident in our government's reluctant acceptance of three recent hikes in the bank rate of
October 17, 1979

the Bank of Canada, raises increasingly damaging to the ordinary citizen, homeowner, farmer, and businessman alike.
The fact is, sir, in my opinion, that we are presently reacting to a situation created during the past six or seven years during which time our federal government spent more than it raised, financed its debts on credit, and intentionally inflated the supply of paper dollars. In an effort to do good, to meet the pleas in favour of social betterment, the previous government provided a lot of bad examples to Canadians.
Our major economic problems today stem in large measure, sir, from the inflationary bias of past government policies, policies which motivated citizens to spend too much and to save too little. Federal taxes, the budget and monetary policies all promoted immediate consumption instead of investment for the future. The result has been a less productive work force, a reduction in real growth, and an upswing in expectations. The reason has been too much money chasing too few goods.
From 1968 to 1978 the Canadian money supply, as defined by "Ml", increased by approximately 160 per cent. During this time real economic growth in our country was about 54 per cent. The general price level in the economy increased by 106 per cent, a percentage very close to the amount of new money printed in a vain attempt to prime the pump or spur the economy.
One has to ask, I think on all sides of the Flouse, why the previous government permitted the money supply growth to reach the point where the governor of the Bank of Canada now must talk about braking? A most important reason, of course, was the need to finance the rising federal debt brought on by deficit after deficit. Deficits can hardly be blamed on the Bank of Canada. In the period from 1968 to 1978 federal spending nearly quintupled.
Americans are worried about their current deficit of $30 billion, yet proportionately our current deficit is nearly three times the size. In U.S. terms the Canadian deficit would be more than $110 billion.
After the election, approximately 39 per cent of persons interviewed by Gallup pollsters indicated they considered rising prices or inflation to be Canada's number one problem. Our deficit is too high and the reduction of that deficit is one of the government's main tasks. Our government is pledged to curb government spending, but it will take real toughness to bring that deficit under control. Inflation must be attacked at its root cause. Not only must there be a cutback in deficit spending, excessive expansion of the monetary base must be stopped.
Being a lawyer, I believe in consulting precedents, especially when those precedents are impressive. West Germany is a country with a rock solid economy. During 1978, West Germany had a trade surplus of $21 billion. Its GNP is expected to grow more than 4.5 per cent in 1979. Inflation is not expected to exceed 4 per cent. Helmut Schmidt believes that the first among the greatest world problems is the notion-I am paraphrasing-to consume more than is produced and to
The Address-Mr. Kilgour fill in the gap by printing money. I believe we should heed Chancellor Schmidt's advice. The opinion of Mr. Schmidt is already shared by a number of economists both in the United States and Canada.
The solutions they propose include the following measures: first, consistent policies of moderate monetary growth; second, long-term tax incentives to encourage saving and investment; third, working toward balancing the budget and discouraging excessive consumer spending; fourth, reduction in government spending; fifth, the scrapping of destructive and wasteful government regulations, and sixth, a reduction of the government's over-all role in the economy in order to encourage personal incentive and private sector competition. The direction of the new government as revealed in the throne speech is very much in the direction of these proposals.
Like others in this House on all sides, I suspect, 1 am perplexed by the latest bank rate increase. It has given Canadians the highest real cost of borrowing in Canadian history-much higher than in the United States because inflation in that country is now running at about 14 per cent compared to about 9 per cent in this country. 1 am aware that the United States must try to keep its nominal interest rates above its inflation rate. But if inflation in that country goes to, say, 30 per cent because of bad fiscal, energy, and monetary policy in Washington, must this mean that the bank rate in Canada will automatically go 33 per cent or 34 per cent as well?
I realize that our central bank defends such increases as being necessary to maintain the value of our dollar in foreign exchange markets. But surely the difference in our current inflation rates must inevitably cause our dollar to move upward relative to the United States dollar. As for our balance of payments problem as a whole, I am persuaded that there are now probably more basic cures than monetary ones, such as exporting some of our surplus natural gas, moving more export grain, etc.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I believe that inflation has completely destroyed the credibility of the previous government, as well as the value of Canadian dollars. Borrowing by the government in the past has primarily been to hide an inept economic performance, and intentionally to keep the fly wheel of inflation turning. There we can vividly see an example of where expediency took precedence over right. The new government has an enormous task ahead of it. It will take a great effort, and courage, to curb expenditures. Nevertheless, this task is a vital one. Otmar Emminger, head of West Germany's equivalent of the United States Federal Reserve, has said that "inflation is like a dictator-it must be fought before it becomes established, or it is too late".
Next to the state of the economy the most serious concern of the people in Edmonton-Strathcona appears to me to be the growing violent crime rate in the west, and in Edmonton in particular. The 1977 Statistics Canada figures indicate that Edmonton had more violent crimes than any other major Canadian city. The violent crime rate per capita was more than double the average for Canada as a whole. From 1977 to

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Kilgour
1978, for instance, murders in Edmonton increased by fully 85 per cent.
The increase in crime is also apparent in the whole Canadian context, evident in the national crime rate, which has gone up about 152 per cent during the last sixteen-year period, with crimes of violence approximately doubling. The disturbing fact is that crime rates have been rapidly going up in a period when Canadians have been enjoying both rapidly improving living standards and social services. How can this be explained?
Charles E. Silberman, author of "Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice", a fairly recently published work, notes that most crime is committed by people between the ages of 14 and 25 years of age. Silberman believes many of these adolescents are committing crimes because of the weakening of adult social controls.
I noted before that we live in an age where the old values are being questioned. This is equally true of our criminal justice system. After all, our justice system reflects the predominant social values of the day. The criminal law was originally fashioned with the idea that citizens entered into the social contract with the understanding that society would guarantee, or at least put a premium on, their lives, dignity, and right to possessions. Especially during the past decade our criminal justice system changed its emphasis from that of reform to that of rehabilitation, based on social scientists' convictions that most crime is rooted in environmental causes. The concept of rehabilitation has undeniably proved to be a failure. By the 1970s it had become clear that prisons were not effectively rehabilitating prisoners. The same faces were appearing in front of the courts with startling regularity.
It has also become clear that present parole laws have not been very effective. A 1974 study of penitentiary parole by the solicitor general's office showed that 53.7 per cent of the individuals released were back in prison within five years of their release.
I believe I am justified in saying that there is a growing conviction in the country that the mild treatment of convicted violent criminals, and I would stress "violent", has contributed to soaring crime rates. More important, there is an increasing fear of criminals by the citizens of this country, a fear that is gradually turning into real resentment.
A society in which crime goes without real punishment and victims receive no justice for their injury is a society that may turn to vigilante justice. Witness the increasing numbers of Canadians inclined to favour capital punishment.
Our criminal justice system constitutes a key element of our social fabric. It follows, in my opinion, that people will act, to some extent, according to how they believe society views their actions. A sentence not commensurate with the gravity of the crime indicates to the violent offender that his action is not regarded by society as a serious breach of social norms. Would not criminals be more effectively deterred by raising the penalties involved in violent crime as well as raising the opportunities and rewards offered by a non-criminal existence?

Cynicism and indifference to good and evil are products of a society that is less concerned with the needs of those who observe its rules than with those who break them. Guidance respecting acceptable social behaviour must be provided in our social structure, especially for the young members of our society. The starting point for this, of course, should be the family and the educational system. These institutions must be reinforced by our justice system, through measures that, first, provide sentences commensurate with the severity of violent crimes; second, distinguish between the professional criminal and the occasional offender; and third, implement common sense rules with respect to parole and bail.
[ Translation]
The last point I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the constitutional matter. The Quebec referendum, coming along with the recent provincial disagreements, will give great urgency to the problems related to the nature of Canadian federalism, as it is described in our constitution. The last century has obviously brought drastic changes to the structure of Canada. The growth of technological innovation as well as the growing diversity within Canada have required changes to the role of governments. These changes have been accompanied by growing confusion over the relations between the national and provincial governments.
Many Canadians, particularly in western Canada and in Quebec, have considered the policies of the previous regime to be harmful to the true federal system. The impact of these policies indicates that a number of citizens regard Ottawa as monolithic and insensitive to provincial needs, contrary to the spirit of the British North America Act.
It is becoming even more obvious that the provinces are little inclined to melt into a unitary and centralized state like France or Great Britain. The provinces believe that under such conditions the value of the language, the cultural traditions and their respective economic environment, which vary from one province to another, could become sources of frictions and debates. Also they think that it could be very harmful for our national unity.
The centralist point of view of Canada which considers the provinces as creations of the Canadian Parliament has indeed been refuted by the judiciary committee of the Privy Council since 1892 when it rejected the centralist argument in the case of the Maritime Bank, by upholding the intent behind the British North America Act which was neither to weld all the provinces together into one single state nor to subordinate the provincial governments under a central authority.
A country as large as Canada cannot be governed by and from Ottawa alone. If it were not a federal system, like a ten-link chain, it would be disunited. The Canadian economy cannot be designed to feed central Canada. A chain can be strong only if its links themselves are strong.
As for Quebec, it is imperative that there be significant resolve at the provincial level. Because of its cultural and
October 17, 1979

linguistic make-up, Quebec has need of a strong judicial and political structure to protect its interests and remain part of Canada. Few Quebeckers think that the changes in the constitution suggested by the former government were in fact based on the wish to protect provincial rights, when in fact nothing was done by that government in the last eight years to better the constitutional position of the provinces within confederation.
Whatever past errors may have been, time has come for all Canadians to express their devotion to Quebec. Canada and Quebec have need of one another if Canadians want to continue proving that citizens of various cultures and origins can build a country worthy of the envy of the whole wide world. Tearing it apart now, as the former prime minister said, would be "a sin against humanity". It is very easy for us, Canadians, who feel the same way, to recognize the need for such changes as will achieve a realistic balance between the provincial and federal governments.
In considering the changes in the constitution that would help national unity, attention could be concentrated on the following factors:	regional disparities, Senate reform,
entrenching the Supreme Court in the constitution, federal government purchasing power, entrenching the Canadian Bill of Rights. The new Clark government recognizes that a truly federal system demands that there be consultations between the responsible governments through federal-provincial conferences. In addition, it recognizes that the provinces must have a broad enough base on which to set up efficiently the institutional and economic foundation of their own economies with a view to meeting their development need better.
I have mentioned briefly three problem areas which, if not checked, could constitute a very real threat to the fundamental principles of our society.
The dilemma we face, as far as inflation is concerned, is that the methods used by the previous government to resolve tensions in the economy are the very methods which are most likely to undermine the foundations of our social system. In my opinion they have, to a substantial degree, destroyed our trust in money itself, the instrument of exchange through which we conduct all of our economic affairs.
It was Abraham Lincoln who said, "You can't bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift... You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer ... You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money ... You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves."
Second, with respect to the problem of crime, we must remember that law and order are a matter of civilization. When there is no proper control over crime, a proper social
The Address-Mr. Penner
order simply cannot be maintained. Thus crime threatens the social order in much the same way as does totalitarianism.
Criminal law in itself can never bring about a good society. However, it helps provide the framework within which a society can function.
Finally, with regard to the constitution, it must be remembered that in its expressive sense the constitution is a communication from the people to their governors of how they have asserted their freedoms and responsibilities. The federal government must be sensitive to this true spirit of our constitution and acknowledge its partnership role with the provinces in the governing of the nation.
The answers to the above problems have no easy solutions. There are no promising new doctrines or panaceas; there are only difficult and perhaps unpleasant choices. The root causes of these problems cannot be dealt with by experts or by abstract theories. They must be tackled by common sense people from a commonsense perspective that to effect something good one must proceed on the basis of what is right. This government, as the representative of the Canadian people, has the primary responsibility to proceed from the right to the good.
With the serious danger of chronic inflation, growing crime, and the threat to national unity, Canadians and the new government must recognize that this is a time for strength, a time for good will, a time for understanding and determination on all of our parts.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I want to join with many others in congratulating the two new members of Parliament who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I agree with other hon. members that the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) performed well, and I know that their constituents will be extremely proud of them. All members in this House on the opening day of Parliament, that day of tradition, were pulling for these new members. We wanted them to do well, and they certainly did not fail us.
I want to say how pleased I am as a member of Parliament from northern Ontario that one of ours, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), is once again the occupant of the Speaker's chair. It was my privilege to be associated with Mr. Speaker for one year during the Thirtieth Parliament in the capacity of deputy chairman of the whole House. That experience for me was not only enjoyable in every respect, but also it was an excellent opportunity to learn more about the intricacies of the procedures in this House, those mysteries of which the gentlemen at the Table know all, and when we go to them, will reveal to us what we need to know. During that year of working with Mr. Speaker I came to respect his quick mind and to appreciate his many talents and abilities.
I am now entering my twelth year as a member of this great democratic institution, the federal Parliament of Canada.

October 17, 1979
The Address-Mr. Penner Mr. Alexander: The class of '68.


B. Keith Penner: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) says the class of 68. That, of course, is not a very long period of service compared to some, but 1 can say to the new members of Parliament in this House that those nearly dozen years have gone by like an instant. So full, so demanding, and so challenging has the life and work of being a member of Parliament been, that time quite literally does fly.
A cynical friend of mine once said that one should never take up an occupation, profession or career that you enjoy too much because, if you do, you will find that it makes your life pass too quickly. My cynical friend would be ill-advised ever to enter active politics or become involved in public life, because he would discover that one's life does indeed pass by quickly. Weeks become like days, and years are often like months.
When I was called upon to speak a few minutes ago, I was identified by you, Mr. Speaker, as the member for Cochrane. That identification is still somewhat new to me, because for over a decade in this House, I was the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay. I should briefly explain that the old constituency of Thunder Bay was a large rural riding in northern Ontario. It was entirely rural, and included no part of what is now the city of Thunder Bay. That is all a little bit confusing.
To compress the story, boundaries were changed through the process of redistribution, and much could be said about how badly that was handled in the province of Ontario. I do not know about other provinces, but in my province it was done in a less than satisfactory manner. At any rate, as a result of that process, one third of the old Thunder Bay riding was joined with three quarters of the previous Cochrane riding to create what I call the new constituency of Cochrane.
No member of Parliament could ask for a better riding to represent in the Parliament of Canada. There may be, and I am sure there are, some that are as good, but there can be none better than the constituency of Cochrane. There are, for example, in the constituency of Cochrane French-speaking Canadians, English-speaking Canadians, new Canadians from all over the globe, and native Canadians, the original Canadians, and they live together in this part of northern Ontario in relative harmony and in an atmosphere of good will. The many differences among us are not merely tolerated, they are in fact respected.
The people of Cochrane are strong minded. They live in a developing region of this country, a resource rich region. What takes them there indicates that in character they would be strong willed and strong minded. In addition, they are politically astute. Allow me to illustrate what 1 mean.
This lesson of political astuteness was well learned when the party that now forms the minority government opposite and their national president came into the Cochrane riding to try to manipulate the political situation in such a way that it would serve their interests. The story is on record in the newspapers of the time. To put it very quickly and simply, the
situation which they tried to manipulate blew up in their faces. The imprint of egg on some Tory visages will be difficult to erase for a long time to come. It gives us something to laugh about and we certainly need that, especially when the winter months come with the chilly Arctic winds sweeping down upon our bushland and into our scattered towns and small villages. A good belly laugh at that time does a lot to help the circulation.
Incidentally, I should point out that some of our television viewers in northern Ontario are now able to enjoy, thanks to satellite communications, programs all the way from Atlanta, Georgia. Atlanta has come to have a special interest for us in the Cochrane riding. We understand that this place in the southern United States is now the heavenly emporium for forlorne floorwalkers who have stumbled and fallen in the service of nation and party.
During the course of this so-called throne speech debate members on this side of the House have used a variety of terms in seeking to describe the present Government of Canada accurately. Thus, we have heard reference to frittering, inexperience, naivete, and confusion. Many have spoken about the government's unsureness, uncertainty, and lack of clarity. Some have been so bold as to suggest that what we see opposite is vacillation and evasion, and that the throne speech is, to quote one member, without commitment to anything.
When I observe the actions of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp), a minister whose activities 1 will be following with considerable interest during the life of this Parliament as the critic for Northern Development, the word which springs into my mind is none of the ones I have already mentioned. Rather, the word that comes to my mind is ineptitude.
I, and others on this side of the House, regret very much that such a distinguished member as the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Holmes) was not given the portfolio of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. How long and how hard this man laboured in the opposition vineyard as the critic for this important area of responsibility! He gained much respect for his diligence and the degree of understanding which he acquired during those many years. Now what is his reward? His reward is to play no more than second fiddle to the maestro from Provencher who is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I want to talk about some of the activities of that minister, particularly in initiating, without coming to this House, some very significant constitutional changes in the Yukon territory. Perhaps with Your Honour's consent and the consent of all members 1 can begin that topic tomorrow, and now call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 18, 1979