1979-10-16

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: In view of the reports from the Law Reform Commission that as many as 75 per cent of divorced spouses are unable to enforce a maintenance order made by the courts, and in view of the fact that there are at present no reliable statistics covering the number of defaults in payments under maintenance orders in Canada, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin):
That this House order its Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to undertake an immediate review of the problem of enforcing maintenance payments ordered under the Divorce Act, to review the history of defaults and to consider the advisability of instituting public means of enforcement.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the federal-provincial agreements supporting the teaching of official languages ended on March 31 last; considering that the federal government has morally and financially supported the provinces in their endeavour to teach the official languages by giving them additional funds; and considering that the provinces badly need those additional
funds to maintain some programs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the House state its complete support of the Secretary of State in his negotiations with the provinces to sign multilateral agreements on the teaching of official languages and that failing the unanimous approval of the provinces about accounting procedures and public disclosure of those accounts, the Secretary of State give the reasons to this House and make a public statement indicating the government's position on that very important program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the unemployment rate is high in the main areas of our country, that there is every indication that it will get higher within the next few months, and that inflation eats away at the people's purchasing power, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy):
That the House urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take forthwith all necessary steps to introduce legislation calling for the establishment of a guaranteed annual income of universal application and without discrimination, with a view to ensuring the economic safety of all Canadians generally.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
222

October 16, 1979


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact, first, that the Foothills Pipe Line application for an overland oil route will not now be heard by the National Energy Board and, second, that the Secretary of the Interior in the United States, Cecil Andrus, has given support to the northern tier route, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings way (Mr. Waddell):
That an emergency debate be held on this matter in the House of Common; that the government immediately send a strong diplomatic protest to the United States stating unequivocally our opposition to tanker traffic which will endanger the Canadian west coast.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion concerning an important and urgent matter.
In view of the precarious position of our veterans, who defended this country with great courage, like the Socreds did yesterday by preventing an expenditure of $50 million for a general election, and in view of the fact that a great number of them have no other income outside their pension and are living in poverty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):


Some hon. Members:: No.	That the House direct the Minister of National Defence and Minister of
Veterans Affairs to introduce in the House a bill to amend the existing Veterans
Act and to increase the pension in order to ensure a decent and human level of
income for those who defended our country and our values.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the government's decision to increase accommodation rental rates of married quarters for DND personnel across Canada on November 1, in some provinces by as much as 50 per cent to 75 per cent, in view of the fact that this will widen the gap between take-home pay of personnel in Atlantic Canada compared to that received by personnel in provinces which have lower taxes and rent control boards, forcing personnel to ask for transfers to the provinces in which they receive more take-home pay, and in view of the fact that the pay increase scheduled for this month is being reviewed and may now be phased-in over a period of time, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae):
That the government cancel this cruel and unwarranted rent increase to DND personnel and assure the armed forces that the pay increase announced by the previous government will be honoured in this month's cheques.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. 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.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the importance of marine and rail services to eastern Canada.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen):
That the government take action to correct the eroding rail services in eastern Nova Scotia and CN Marine facilities in eastern Canada and put a freeze on all reductions on facilities and employment until the completion of such action.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be introduced for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
[Mr. Speaker.)
October 16, 1979

Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Foothills Pipe Lines stated that the slow pace of negotiation with the Yukon Indians is a reason for their withdrawing their application, in view of the fact the American government has imposed a deadline for us to settle this question, and in view of the fact that the new federal government cancelled negotiating meetings with the Yukon Indians in September and again in October, and again attempted to delay and stall negotiations for the rest of this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That the government stop stalling on land claim negotiations and immediately commence intensive and high-level negotiations with the Council of Yukon Indians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The failure of the former government to discuss with representatives of public employees changes in legislation affecting the public service has damaged labour-management relations and demoralized some public servants. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House request the President of the Treasury Board to consider establishing a process whereby public service representatives will be consulted on legislative changes affecting public employees and their employment.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the news that Foothills did withdraw their application from in front of the National Energy Board is obviously shared with concern by both parties on this side of the House.
My question would be to the Prime Minister. We heard just last Thursday that his government had sent an aide memoire to the United States, supporting Foothills. Yesterday, we heard that Foothills had withdrawn its application. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us when his government sent this aide memoire and what contacts were made with Foothills during the course of the summer to establish the government's interest in this major project, which would mean many jobs for Canadians, and which would also clear us of the danger of tanker routes off the west coast.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have at hand the date of the aide memoire that was sent to the United States. I can get that and report to the House. I can also have prepared for the Leader of the Opposition a detailed list of the contacts that were made by ministers of the Crown and representatives of Foothills. That might be easier to table, rather than try to respond orally in the House. I will get back with the detailed information as soon as I can.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it has to be very detailed. I am interested in a date. I want to know since the five months after the election whether there has been dithering, or action, by the government. The Prime Minister will know that last spring our government advised the President of the United States-and we made a public statement to that effect-that we wanted Foothills to be given preference and we supported that route. Now we hear that they are withdrawing in favour of a competitor.
Really, the detailed meetings are not important. It is the dates and the question of whether the meetings were recent and, particularly, whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources met with his counterpart in the United States or with the Secretary of the Interior of the United States who is obviously favouring the northern tier route. That route will not only create jobs for Americans over Canadians, but will cause increased tanker traffic which is a concern to Canadians.

October 16, 1979
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the question of the Leader of the Opposition is whether there was dithering, the answer is no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a matter of judgment. The country will be able to say whether it is yes or no when we hear the dates. The Prime Minister does not even seem to be aware of this question. Perhaps he should ask the Minister of the Environment, who dealt with it on Thursday but gave us no date.


Charles Joseph Clark: To repeat my undertaking in response to the first question of the Leader of the Opposition, as soon as I have those dates-and I can, perhaps, have them sent to me in the course of the question period-1 will communicate that to the House of Commons. He is speaking, I gather, of the date of the aide memoire. 1 will get that for him.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Charles Joseph Clark: Now 1 am told by someone else that there are other dates. That is what I indicated in my earlier response. What 1 will try to do is provide the House of Commons, the Leader of the Opposition and his various spokesmen on the other side an indication of the various contacts that were made by representatives of this government with Foothills or with the United States in relation to this proposal.
I will also try to have, perhaps before the end of this question period, the date of the aide memoire sent by this government to the government of the United States.


PROPOSED OIL TANKER ROUTE ON WEST COAST-EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it is also on the Foothills subject. Last Friday, the Minister of the Environment said publicly that a proposed oil tanker route off the British Columbia coast has some merit in it.
Did this backtracking on the government's previous position, which opposed oil tankers down the coast of B.C., indicate a change of policy, or was it just a coincidence that the statement was made last Friday and the proposal was withdrawn yesterday?


Charles Joseph Clark: It certainly indicated no change of policy, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am trying to deal seriously with the question, which I think was posed seriously. There was no relation between the statement made by the Minister of the Environment on Friday and a decision announced later about which he did not know on Friday.

1 should take this opportunity to tell the House that, in light of the decision by Foothills, which we regret, the government will be reassessing the communication that we should be making to the United States. It is our intention to send, at the earliest possible time, another communication to the United States on the question of the pipeline route.


An hon. Member:: Send Stanfield.


Arthur Phillips: The Minister of the Environment was also quoted as saying that there are more than just environmental considerations to take into account on this question. Can the Prime Minister tell us what non-environmental considerations worked against the all-Canadian Foothills proposal which, as the Prime Minister knows, was primarily sponsored by West-coast Transmission Co. Ltd., of which the largest shareholder is PetroCan, and involved a construction project primarily in Canada with no tankers?


Charles Joseph Clark: It is my understanding that the representatives of Foothills indicated a series of reasons for reaching the decision they did with regard to their application.


Arthur Phillips: My question did not really refer to the reasons for which the Foothills people withdrew; it had to do with the statement by the Minister of the Environment about "nonenvironmental considerations" which, apparently, did not favour an all-Canadian route. Can the Prime Minister tell us what non-environmental considerations worked against an allCanadian route?


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is well known to the House that there were concerns, for example, on the part of the Council of the Yukon Indians and there was concern in the United States about which would be the more viable route from the point of view of the economic delivery of energy. A wide range of considerations was taken into account. Naturally, we were concerned mainly, as we remain concerned, about the environmental implications of any sort to Canada, particularly tanker traffic along the west coast.


PETRO-CANADA STATEMENT OF PREMIER DAVIS ON POSSIBLE DISMANTLING OF CORPORATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Premier of Ontario, Canada's largest oil-consuming province, expressed the view that it would be folly to break up Petro-Canada for the reason it is good business sense for Petro-Canada to have a profit-making component to help finance the unprofitable part.
In the light of that serious statement by Premier Davis, added to those of other important people on the subject, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will accept this principle of integrating the profitable with the non-profitable
October 16, 1979

when the government reaches its conclusion on the task force report introduced to the House yesterday?


Charles Joseph Clark: The government and the people of Canada have received a very valuable and imaginative proposal from the task force on Petro-Canada. The government will be considering that proposal very seriously and we hope to be able to make an announcement of our response as quickly as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: I am not asking the Prime Minister for a detailed response, because I understand it will presumably take at least a few days for the government to reach a decision on the recommendations. 1 am asking the right hon. gentleman, however, to indicate to the House a basic principle in approaching his conclusions.
Does he agree that a large, integrated, Canadian-owned firm with a profitable and non-profitable aspect has to be maintained on the ground that it is good business to use the profits of part of the firm to finance the non-profitable part?


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 can certainly assure the Leader of the NDP that among the factors which will guide our decision in responding to the task force on Petro-Canada will be to arrive at a conclusion which will make good business sense.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, Mr. Speaker, the way this government has performed so far, that would be a contradiction in terms. Considering that the government seems to be moving willy-nilly toward the break-up of Petro-Canada on the basis of some doctrinaire predisposition against public enterprise, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that by breaking up Petro-Canada we shall be left with two smaller firms in an industry dominated by multinationals?
In that context, will the Prime Minister tell us what he is going to do about the assertion yesterday of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that, even as the law exists today, his government is powerless to intervene in the supply and price practices of the multinationals?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there were two questions. Let me deal with the second first. We are reviewing the powers of the Government of Canada in relation to being able to respond to some of the problems cited yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He was speaking of legislation inherited from the former government, and we are going to take a look at that legislation and see if there are ways by which we can make it more effective in dealing with problems which are now becoming familiar to this House of Commons.
In relation to Petro-Canada generally, we are very much attracted by the proposal put forward by the task force which would allow individual citizens to participate directly in a significant Canadian oil company with the capacity to operate in a very major way here and perhaps beyond here. We are very much attracted by that idea.
Oral Questions
We are going to take a very serious look at all of the implications of the task force report, and hope to be able to indicate the formal response of the government to that report at the earliest possible date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PURCHASE OF OIL FROM MEXICO
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In January of this year the previous minister of energy, mines and resources made an agreement with the Mexican government whereby we would purchase $5 billion to $6 billion worth of Mexican future oil production for an equivalent amount of Canadian goods and services. This deal was initialled, 1 believe, in early May.
Has the expected visit of the President of Mexico in September to sign this agreement been postponed, or has the deal fallen through?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can answer, in October, that the visit for September has been postponed. It will be rescheduled, I believe, for May of 1980.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, can we assume that we have not been outmanoeuvred by the Japanese? Can we assume that the deal is still on? Why do we have to wait until next May or June for this particular meeting and signature?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will make what assumptions he wishes, and then they will bear their usual relation to reality.
The visit of the President of Mexico was postponed until May because that is the first opportunity which he will have to be able to come to Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Privy Council. In view of the tabling yesterday of the D'Avignon committee report, can the minister inform the House of both the procedure and the timeframe for coming to decisions about that, the Lambert commission report, and so on, and reference to a parliamentary committee and/or legislation, if any? Can he give us an indication of procedure, process and particularly the time in which legislation or other policy decisions might reach Parliament?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, 1 indicated yesterday and am pleased to indicate to

October 16, 1979
Oral Questions
the House that the D'Avignon report will be going to the cabinet committee of the public service chaired by the Prime Minister, where it will be considered along with the implications for the public service and the Lambert report.
With respect to the question of time-frame, I hope there will be sufficient time allowed for consultations with the public service unions involved and public servants generally who are involved in the course of that consideration. 1 will be in touch with the public service unions directly to invite them to comment with respect to that report. It is difficult to say how long that consultation will take, but given the importance of the subject, I want it to be complete. I have no objections at all to considering the involvement of Parliament in any draft legislation which might be required or the results of the considerations of the cabinet committee.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, can the minister not be a little more precise? I fully agree with the idea that there has to be full consultation with the representatives of the public service employees, but can the minister not give us a little more precision as to the time-frame in which decisions will be made and presented to this House?


Walter David Baker: I would like to be able to do that in terms of a specific date. 1 think it would be unfair and perhaps unrealistic to do that. I hope the hon. member will accept my assurances that we will be doing it as quickly as we can having regard to the importance of the subject not only to the Government of Canada but to the public servants who serve the people of Canada.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in view of that comment, or answer, and in view of certain press reports that there might be legislation next spring or next fall, I ask the minister if he is really satisfied with the rather leisurely pace of progress toward decision, in face of the fact that the public servants of Canada, not only here in Ottawa but in communities all across the country, have now hanging over their heads profound changes proposed by the D'Avignon committee, profound change proposals in the Lambert commission report, a 60,000 cut in the federal public service, rumoured changes in the federal public service pension act, with even hints of retroactivity, and rumours of changes in the collective bargaining process. Is there not more urgency to get all this resolved so our public service can settle down and go to work?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I see no difficulty with the public service settling down and going to work. As a matter of fact, despite implications to the contrary from the hon. member, I think the Public Service of Canada is doing a relatively good job for the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Given the importance of the subject to the public service and to the government, and given

the real importance of the consultative process which the former government denied the public service when it brought in Bills C-22 and C-28, I do not want to repeat the mistakes of the former government.


RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF WOMEN, INDIGENOUS GROUPS AND THE HANDICAPPED
Ursula Appolloni: I, too, should like to refer to the D'Avignon report, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address my question to the President of the Treasury Board who, I am sure, is well aware of the degree of confusion and anxiety that his remarks have created among public servants, particularly among the women in the public service who are very concerned about the lack of opportunity that his statements seem to make even worse.
Can the minister, unlike his predecessor who has just spoken of the lack of urgency, assure the House that the recommendations contained in this report for the betterment of women, indigenous groups and the handicapped, will be pursued with vigour and with a great deal of urgency?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, 1 would indicate that I read chapter 7 of the D'Avignon report yesterday with great interest and I thought many of the observations contained therein were pertinent. As you know, there were about 50 recommendations. But I would assure the hon. member that the actual proportion of women in the public service has risen this year from December 31, 1978, when there were 34.4 per cent, to 34.7 per cent today.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, 1 am really appalled at the insensitivity just displayed by the President of the Treasury Board. I can assure him that it is no great comfort to the women of Canada to know that more of them are doing menial jobs in the public service.


Ursula Appolloni: My question to the President of the Treasury Board is, what is he going to do about these very positive recommendations contained in the D'Avignon report in order to afford more opportunity and much more security to the women in the public service?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I would indicate, as I mentioned previously, that I have read the chapter to which she has referred and I thought it contained some pertinent observations. As my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, has indicated, we will bring in suitable legislation in due course to reflect not only some of the recommendations in the report to which she referred but also some of the recommendations in the Lambert report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 16, 1979


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last Thursday, the minister tabled regulations in the House tightening the general criteria for immigrants coming to Canada. In his press release, he gave as one of the reasons the increased inflow of boat people as refugees.
I want to ask the minister if he realizes the resentment that this decision causes to other groups wanting to bring their families into Canada. Will he rescind the regulations, bearing in mind in particular that the Joint Senate-House Committee on Immigration unanimously recommended that refugees not normally be included in the general immigration levels?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his first question in his new job. 1 should tell him, also- and I am sure he is well aware of it-that the ten-point penalty is merely reinstating a rule that was imposed by the previous government. That rule was in effect until the spring of this year, when that rule was suddenly taken off mid-way through the election campaign, the policy reasons fo; which have never been clearly explained to me.
That ten-point penalty, as the hon. member well knows, is a flexibility device to permit the government to meet its preannounced target for immigration levels, which in 1979 was 100,000 as established by the previous government. The special movements dealing with refugees by which Canada hopes to take up to 50,000 by 1980 are in addition to the particular target of 100,000.
I want to assure the hon. member opposite that the IndoChinese refugee program is in addition and will not mean a cutback in any way of other immigrants allowed into Canada in the normal way.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The press release which the minister tabled last week states very clearly that the larger number of refugees was one of the considerations for introducing these tougher criteria. 1 want to ask him whether he has consulted the provinces, and did they approve of this retrograde step which he took last Thursday?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: There are ongoing consultations with the provinces, most particularly consultations having to do with the report that 1 will table in the House on November 1 establishing the level for 1980. Quite obviously, the provinces' concern about employment opportunities have been made known to me and they will appear evident in the report filed on November 1. The hon. member will have full opportunity to see the implications of the ten-point penalty which has been reimposed, a policy of the previous government, so we can meet the particular target both for 1979 and, as he will see, for 1980.
Oral Questions


REQUEST MINISTER ALLOW POLISH SAILORS TO REMAIN IN CANADA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given the plight of six Polish sailors who jumped ship in Newfoundland in the hope of escaping from an oppressive regime in their native country, and the fact that a deportation order returning them to Poland, and probably to jail sentences and other forms of harassment is imminent, is the minister prepared at this time to issue a ministerial permit which will allow these men to remain in Canada?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his first question in the House and, of course, I refer to the fact that we have had discussions on this very delicate situation. The six individuals who deserted the various Polish fishing trawlers have had a degree of due process already. I should indicate that they have been before the special refugee committee and were turned down. They have had, of course, an opportunity to go to the Immigration Appeal Board.
Right now I have ordered that no further action be taken pending my personal review of each individual's situation. This review includes searching for a third country which might be willing to take these unfortunate individuals caught in the present circumstances.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Given the evidence reported yesterday on the damage that has already occurred to the North American lakes and future damage, as well as the resulting economic impact that will occur on our agriculture and forest industries if the acid precipitation problem is not brought under control immediately, what extraordinary measures has the minister recommended to his cabinet, to Environment Canada and to his American counterpart?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. As the House knows, the provinces and the federal government agreed in June to strike a committee to attack the acid rain problem, and in July a joint communique was issued by the government of the U.S. and the Government of Canada indicating their desire to co-operate.
On October 8, 1 returned from Washington with agreement by my counterpart of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Costle, that joint action on both sides of the border was the only way in which the problem would be solved. On September 25, the first full meeting of the provincial-federal

October 16, 1979
Oral Questions
committee was held. Two working groups have now been established, one on control strategies and one on the scientific program.
Yesterday, the House had the release of the report which, while we had some indication of what was in it, we were waiting for. The problem is extremely serious. Of course, the problem is understood to be serious by the government and by my department. That is why we have called it the most serious environmental problem Canada has ever faced.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, it is all very good for the minister to give us a rundown through his speech of what has been talked about. What we need now is action. I specifically address my supplementary question to the same minister. What instructions has he or his department given Inco, which is the largest single producer of sulphuric acid in acid rain fallout in all of North America? Because this is an interprovincial and international problem, the government cannot hide behind the Ontario provincial department of the environment.
What specific instructions has the minister given to Inco and other, similar industries to cut back drastically on their emissions so that we will then be in a bargaining position equal to that of the United States, equal to their much more stringent standards, when it comes to hammering out the pure air or clean air treaty?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the provincial-federal discussions now taking place, and the control and scientific strategies being worked out, is to enable us to know exactly where and in what place the most stringent controls must be placed.
The hon. member has mentioned one particular emission source which is a very serious problem in Canada and it is a known source in the United States, but that is not the only source; there are many of them. Now we are working together to identify the sources and to define a control strategy which will work. We are not moving unilaterally against any single, particular emission source.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with reference to the so-called Taschereau papers on national security which were due to be released several years ago, but which were seized by the then prime minister's office and subsequently, on the orders of Michael Pitfield, were sealed for a further ten years in the National Archives.
Is the government reviewing this decision? Is there a possibility that these papers will be made available to Parliament and to the Canadian people?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am having what 1 hope to be a pretty intensive investigation into the whole question of the authority, the statutory jurisdiction or even the legality of actions taken which prevent public access to those papers now in the hands of the National Archives after what I understand to be the statutory period of 30 years.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Francis Fox (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, because one of the top priorities in the Speech from the Throne is job creation; because of the slowdown in the American economy and its effects on our own; because of the successive increases in interest rates, 1 should like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) whether he is aware of the urgency of the situation, and whether he can tell the House exactly when he intends to reveal to Parliament and the Canadian public his employment strategy for the current year?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his first question in his new job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: The details of the government's employment strategy were referred to in the Speech from the Throne. The employment tax credit plan will be expanded; training opportunities for Canadians will be expanded.


An hon. Member:: When?


Ronald George Atkey: There will be an opportunity for a national youth service corps. Most of the details of these programs will be announced in the budget since they may involve budgetary matters; so they will be announced at the time of the budget.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for congratulating me on my first question. I wish I was in a position to congratulate him on his first answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: I wonder whether the minister, in preparing his employment strategy, has had economic studies made in his department on the impact on the job market of successive

October 16, 1979

increases in the rate of interest, and whether, in keeping with the Prime Minister's stated intention of making all pertinent data available to the Canadian public, he would be willing to table this economic impact study, if it exists, in the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all economic data, including interest rates. Also, we are looking at the current rate of unemployment, which is at the lowest level in three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the great success of Harbourfront in Toronto, the fact that the project was visited by 1.3 million Torontonians in the past 12 months, and that the minister is responsible for whether Harbourfront continues, I should like to ask him if he could give some indication of whether the project is being scrapped. Certainly, we have heard rumours that part of it is being sold or leased on long-term leases. Could the minister inform the House what is actually taking place?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member would never ask.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: 1 can assure the hon. member and the House that there is no intention to scrap Harbourfront. There are ongoing discussions with the directorate to work out arrangements to regularize the previous operations of the commission.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Public Works tell us whether it is true that a major part of Harbourfront is being let on a long-term lease to private interests, following the guidelines of this government of privatizing public projects?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am awaiting now recommendations by the board of Harbourfront.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Last April, there was a commitment
Oral Questions
made by DREE of a $50 million expenditure for the Sydney Steel Corporation; $32.5 million to be allocated initially, followed by $17.5 million upon completion. This was confirmed by the Prime Minister during the campaign, that he would agree to this.
Last Friday, the minister and the Premier of Nova Scotia announced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member put his question?


Andrew Hogan: I am putting it now, Mr. Speaker. The minister announced last Friday that approximately $7.2 million would be given. What happened to the pledge of $50 million? The steelworkers in Sydney are wondering.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will know, because of his interest and knowledge in Sysco, that considerable moneys in the past which were allocated were not managed or used too wisely. Expensive equipment was bought which remained for months in crates.
At this particular point in time, several million dollars have been made available for the rehabilitation and renovation of Sysco. The board of directors has been strengthened, new management is there. In the future we will be guided in fulfilling these commitments by the management and by those most affected to provide aid as needed and which can be usefully implemented.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the commitment still stands. Specifically. I want to ask in my supplementary question whether some of the money which was announced to be spent will be spent on the submerged injection process technology in the open part of the Sydney Steel Corporation. That was tried before and failed.
Therefore, I would ask the minister, though the matter is primarily of provincial jurisdiction, if he would guarantee to the House that Stelco, which has already turned down this technology, would oversee and evaluate this process, if it is to be introduced into the Sydney Steel plant, so that we do not have the continuous, useless expenditures of the past to which the minister has referred, and that that plant will be put into a viable position.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is a very perceptive question. I cannot tell the hon. member the answer now, but I will undertake to do that.
Most of the funds which have been allocated to date will be used to improve the open hearth furnaces and to rehabilitate the plant, as I have said. I will undertake to inform the House and the hon. member exactly what fate, if any, awaits the SIP process that has been tried before.
230

October 16, 1979
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


RENTAL RATES FOR MARRIED QUARTERS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had an opportunity to review the substantial rent hikes scheduled for November 1 for married quarters of DND personnel across the country, and if he has had an opportunity to review those hikes, what action will he be taking?


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I had a short opportunity to review the hikes yesterday. The rent increases vary depending on the location. I must say that the location of Gander is the worst of those which I saw in my review. I have asked my seatmate, the minister responsible for the CMHC, to review Gander particularly, and he has promised to do that.
I might say that the rent increases are due on November 1. The pay raise will be effective on October 1, and I have issued instructions that there be no increases in rent until after the pay raise is in the pockets of the servicemen.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of National Defence for his review of the Gander situation. Could the minister tell the House, with regard to the pay increases for DND personnel, whether or not the personnel will receive the total pay increase which they thought they would be getting, or is that pay increase going to be phased in?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what pay raise the personnel thought that they would get. The matter is under discussion between Treasury Board and my officials at the official level right now. The President of the Treasury Board and 1 have had a few words on the matter, and I think that any differences which we have will be straightened out in the next few days. I hope to be able to make the announcement as to the amount of the pay raise within a couple of weeks.
I do not intend to phase in the pay raises. They will become effective October 1, although I am not quite certain when we will get the raise into the serviceman's pocket.


Mr. Lefebvre:: You had better watch Sine, though.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency has been set up and negotiations are being held with the United States government on the amount of imports which will be allowed into Canada, and due to the fact that there is a tremendous surplus of chickens in the United States which is having the effect of forcing the price of chickens in Canada down below the cost of production, could the minister tell the House how those
[Mr. MacKay.l
negotiations are proceeding and when the Canadian chicken producers can expect some relief?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. Because of the hon. member's experience in the poultry industry over the years, he will appreciate the fact that this is not a new problem: this problem has been with us since 1974. There was some delay, of course, before the proclamation of the national agency, which was proclaimed on December 27.
I can assure the hon. member that after assuming the office of Minister of Agriculture on June 4, we encouraged the national agency to move forward and to resolve all its problems. Prior to the national agency receiving its certification from the council, we were communicating with our counterpart in Washington so that we would not lose any time. We have had one round of negotiations in Washington, and the second round was in Ottawa. I hope to be able to make an announcement on that level within ten days.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, whom I wish to congratulate for his many congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roland de Corneille: How can the government justify its rigid departmental envelope spending policy, which has both immigration and employment programs in the same envelope and which will use an estimated $117 million to process Vietnamese refugees, which comes under emergency needs, while having ostensibly to take away from the same envelope funds for employment programs for Canadians this winter and spring? Does this not already prove that the rigid envelope system for departments does not work?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, very, very simply, they are different envelopes. Immigration is in the social affairs envelope, and employment programs are in the economic development envelope.


Robert Knight Andras: And never the twain shall meet!


Ronald George Atkey: I can tell the hon. member, and in fact I will give him some degree of assurance, that there is not going to be a severe cutback in any way whatsoever on either item. They are too important.

October 16, 1979

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he would kindly advise the House of the progress achieved in the negotiations on the transfer of the Nordair shares to the groups that are interested in taking it over. We know that several groups have made offers. Is the minister now in a position, or will he be in the near future, to tell the House and the Canadian people what group will benefit from its decision?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct; there have been a number of proposals submitted. I indicated to all interested parties that I wanted to receive their latest update by last weekend. Transport Canada officials and 1 are currently reviewing the various proposals and I hope that I will be in a position to make a recommendation to cabinet within the next 30 to 40 days.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. It has been said there may be a new group. Three groups have already been identified; they themselves have said they were interested in buying Nordair, but according to rumors in recent days it seems that a new group we have not yet heard of has, in fact, filed an offer to buy with the minister. Is it true that a new group, as yet non-identified, intends to be the buyer, and who are they?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the so-called unidentified or identified group to which the hon. member refers is, or is not, in the proposals which we have received. We have a number of proposals before us and we did attempt to give all interested parties the opportunity to present their proposals and to modify the previous proposals which they originally submitted.
Since we have eagerly desired to bring this matter to a head, we did attempt to contact all those who had expressed an interest in sufficient time to have their proposals in our hands by the end of last week. I am certainly prepared to look at those proposals with every degree of earnestness. My officials are currently doing just that.
Oral Questions ENERGY


GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROVINCES ON PRICES OF OIL AND GAS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the government's intention to allow the public more information, and the government's intention to increase the role of Parliament, could the minister tell the House what price he is recommending to the provinces in his latest discussions with them as to the prices that will be implemented on oil and gas?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the hon. member that in the course of the negotiations with the provinces a number of options with respect to pricing, and the regime, were discussed. These discussions with the provinces have been carried on in earnest.
The hon. member will understand that there has been a lot of speculation. There would be no purpose served in giving all the various options that have been discussed with the provinces. We are working to meet a deadline for an early consensus with respect to this matter, and I hope we can come to an agreement. We will work as hard as possible to meet that objective.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer, I should like to ask him if the House can be privy to these conversations with the provinces in the very near future.
Will the minister tell the House as soon as possible what price he is recommending to the provinces, and the point of view of the provinces with regard to that price?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, once the consultation has taken place, the House will know immediately.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On Friday, the minister confirmed that a meeting had taken place that morning which involved himself, the Minister of Transport and the Attorney General of Canada to discuss the possible prosecution of two tariff bureaux under the Combines Investigation Act.
Will the minister explain, first of all, why the Minister of Transport was involved in this meeting and, second, the nature of the representations made by the Minister of Transport at that meeting to discuss possible prosecution?

October 16, 1979
Privilege-Miss Nicholson


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, quite gladly. First of all, this was one of a series of meetings that take place quite frequently in regard to various prosecutions recommended by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the Minister of Justice. To my mind, these briefings obviously have to include the relevant ministers in respect of the operating departments. For instance, we have a recommendation now that certain activities take place in regard to the petroleum industry.
I conceived, as part of the ongoing consultation within government, that 1 should bring the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources up to date on these matters. It is an information-giving type of meeting. In regard to the trucking industry in the west, the same situation applies; this was an information-giving briefing to the Minister of Transport, but no representations were received from the minister at that time. Indeed, I believe this was the first time the minister had been to that type of meeting.
As far as the status of the recommended prosecution is concerned, the matter is now in the hands of the proper minister, the Minister of Justice.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, who is well aware of the very sensitive constitutional role of the Attorney General of Canada in considering possible criminal prosecutions.
Will the right hon. the Prime Minister outline to the House what action he intends to take, in view of the statement made by his colleague that there has been ministerial involvement in discussions of possible prosecution? 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?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I properly interpret the question put by the hon. member, he is asking that 1 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,
I am not going to give that kind of guarantee.


PRIVILEGE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the answer given to my question yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In that reply, the minister stated that regulations had been made under the Hazardous Products Act concerning cellulose insulation. When I checked with his office later, 1 was told

that the orders were passed on Friday but the information will not be published in The Canada Gazette until October 24. This means that the information is still not in the public domain. I am sure that the minister did not mean to imply that it was in the public domain, when it was not. Perhaps he would be willing to clarify that by making a statement.
The second part of my question of privilege concerns my discovery that the minister issued a press release on Friday. Yesterday afternoon, after two or three telephone calls, my staff succeeded getting a copy of it. I trust that the minister can reassure the House that in the future, on matters that are so very much in the public interest, he will not bypass the House but will ensure that members of Parliament as well as the press are informed of his intentions.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If that is a question of privilege, I will be glad to respond, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it was fairly widely reported in the press on Friday that orders in council had been passed earlier in the week. The hon. member waited until Monday to ask me a question which I assumed, in her position as critic, she already knew the answer to.
Certainly, if all hon. members wish to receive the many press releases that emanate from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that can be arranged and it might be useful, although I know a lot of them go into my wastepaper basket. We are trying to control some of the paperwork, but if the hon. member wishes to have them, she shall; although I think she is already on the distribution list for that type of material. If that is not the case, I will see that her name is added to it.


MR. FLIS-ANSWER OF MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege. The constituents of Parkdale-High Park and I have been very offended by false information given to the House by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey). He said that the six sailors who want to remain in Canada cannot because they are exploring asylum with third countries.
The minister knows very well that the third countries have turned this request down because the minister would not give the third countries the guarantee that these sailors could return to Canada. Furthermore, the minister told me in person that he is waiting for word from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald), who is not paying attention this morning. I have a letter from the Department of External Affairs stating that this is a matter for the Department of Immigration.
Would the Prime Minister please clarify, for his ministers, which ministry will be handling refugee problems, and would the minister please give us an accurate answer as to whether he will-
October 16, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize, I am sure, that he is raising a disagreement and a matter of debate with the answer of the minister and is seeking, frankly, to extend the question period, a temptation to which all hon. members would be delighted to succumb, but which is a luxury we cannot afford.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I am in a position, now, to respond to the question put today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), if that would be agreeable.
The government responded to the President of the United States in a formal statement of our position on September 28. There had been ongoing discussions during the summer with the United States government and Foothills, during which we indicated our support for Foothills and our opposition to the effects of tanker traffic.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On
that point of order, Mr. Speaker, was the date of the aide memoire September 28? Perhaps 1 could reserve for a further question period supplementary questions on this, such as the nature of the ongoing discussions.


Charles Joseph Clark: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, that was the date of the aide memoire.


PRIVILEGE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This relates to a question, but I will not put another question during this question of privilege. My question of privilege relates to the question 1 asked today with respect to the acid rain fallout in Ontario, the United States and Quebec, and specifically to a report drawn up by a team of American and Canadian scientists.
My question of privilege relates to a piece of paper that I have here entitled "Bulletin". It comes from Environment Canada. The headline is "John Fraser to comment on the acid rain report". I feel that the minister, particularly when dealing with a matter of such urgent and pressing importance as the acid rain fallout, should not be making a statement to the press first on this matter of acid rain, and specifically this report released yesterday afternoon but that, rather, he should be making a statement on motions or a statement directly in this
Privilege-Mr. FI is
House to hon. members so that the critics on this side of the House may respond, instead of manipulating the media to do so.
I might also add that it was his party which was so critical of the Liberal administration for doing exactly the same thing, that is, running to the press first and answering questions in the House afterwards.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly certain if that was a question of privilege. I am prepared to tell this House and the hon. member that I am prepared to make a statement on motions concerning this particular matter on Thursday, which will give members opposite a chance to respond. That is a commitment 1 give to the House at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to keep the record straight, since the hon. minister has made reference to it, the practice of making statements is a practice which is within the authority of the minister to choose whether to do so here or not. While the House may express a preference and raise the point as a grievance, the matter does not constitute either a question of privilege or even, for that matter, a point of order.


MR. FLIS-ANSWER OF MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) has made an allegation that I have placed false information before this House. I would ask him to retract that allegation, and clarify for the record, if it requires clarification, so that he might consider a withdrawal of such an allegation.
As I have advised the hon. member, just as I have advised the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism (Mr. Paproski), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), and the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. McCrossan), who have also made representations in this case, that I have deferred action on the case of the six Polish ship-jumpers pending a further review by me personally of their situation. Part of that responsibility which is mine is to investigate the possibility of third countries to which those persons might safely go, as other persons in similar situations have done.
I hope that clarifies the record, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw his allegation of false information.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will realize that I have set aside the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis). However, I wish to advise him that he was on unsafe ground in attempting to extend the question period to pursue a matter which was essentially one of disagreement.
1 did not go on to point out that, while he did not say that the minister has deliberately misled the House, he did use the

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Wenman
words "false information." The hon. member will come to realize that that is a very dangerous accusation to make and he almost turned what was a non-procedural point into a question of privilege by the minister.
1 would take it that further study of the matter might benefit the hon. member, so that in future he will be more careful in his choice of language.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct what may have been a possible misunderstanding in answering the question raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), who unfortunately is not in the House.
He asked if we were planning to bring in an increase in pay for the armed forces in stages; I believe those were his words. It did not register with me that what we are planning to do might be considered as introducing a pay raise in stages. However, what we are planning to do this year is to change the basis of the pay year and the annual pay increase. This will now be effective from the end of March, so that the pay raise will coincide with the fiscal year instead of a year that begins October 1 each time.
This is being done in no way to save money for the Treasury Board or anything of that nature. I hope this will clarify the situation beyond any doubt.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 15, 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. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, last month, in a discussion with a group of Vietnamese intellectuals in Ho Chi Minh ville, Vietnam, 1 posed the question, "Are you free; do you know freedom?" A Vietnamese woman who holds a doctorate degree from Harvard asked, "But, Mr. Wenman, how do you define freedom?" I told her that freedom, to me, is the absence of coercion. She responded by saying, "Yes, but that is only one part of freedom that perhaps comes from freedom of security of food, shelter and provision of health and education."
Following a long conversation at dinner in Ho Chi Minh ville, my elderly communist host said, "I was born in war and have lived my whole life in war. Will I ever know peace?" With this simple question and the earlier remark of the Vietnamese scholar, the dilemma that is Southeast Asia was aptly portrayed. Ironically, the search for peace and economic security has only led to more war, more starvation and some of the most inhuman brutality ever known to man.
The Soviet Union establishes spheres of influence in Vietnam, Kampuchea, and Laos to assure their own security against the threat of China. China establishes spheres of influence in Kampuchea to assure their own security against the threat of the Soviet Union. The U.S. seventh fleet cruises offshore to provide security for a "proper" international balance of power among these three major world powers-all, of course, in the name of international peace and security.
Vietnam, after a series of border disputes and living as neighbouring witness to the slaughter of two million out of six million people in Kampuchea, invades Kampuchea with the lofty motive of liberation but, even more important to them, to establish a sphere of influence to assure their own security against an historically-perceived and real threat from China. Malaysia fights communists in southern Thailand to assist Thailand but, even more important, to protect its own northern border and maintain internal security. Thailand tries to display an image of even-handed diplomacy, again in the name of international peace and security.
It is all a very curious display of multilevel conflict of nations and cultures making war on each other in order to maintain their security against each other. It is easy to condemn in Southeast Asia. Condemnation is indeed appropriate as we see victim after victim flee or fall in the face of man's inhumanity to man, as individual rights are trampled under the heavy boots of inhuman military machines. It was easy for all of us in this House, through television, to watch and sit and condemn Malaysia for pushing those boats laden with the victims of this repression back into the ocean, watching the boats tip over and the people drown. We condemned Malaysia for that.
It was easy in the case of Thailand, after they received over 100,000 refugees and took 43,000 men, women and children

October 16, 1979

and pushed them back across the border into Cambodia or Kampuchea. They pushed them back across the border and the world press and world politicians knew that those 43,000 starved to death in the jungle along that border. We watched that and we condemned Thailand for pushing those 43,000 back into the jungle.
It is so easy to feign pious, self-righteous indignation when we see this human tragedy. Really, who is more guilty, the country which received, in the case of Malaysia and Thailand, hundreds of thousands of refugees and finally said no, or the rest of the governments of the world, including ourselves, who in fact said, "No, we will not accept refugees from the Third World." We only said the same as Malaysia and Thailand.
Before we proceed with this self-righteous indignation, let us recognize that a group of people is in the middle of the ocean in a no-man's land, with no way back and no way forward: they then become a responsibility of the entire world. That responsibility is to be shared. That sharing, while late, was seen in the Geneva Conference on Refugees, where Canada along with other parts of the world agreed to take 50,000 people. This condemnation that we make of other nations and other human beings-and we must make it when we see man's inhumanity to man-must be followed with understanding and action, action that must be humane, fair and corrective.
Three weeks ago I talked with walking skeletons called refugees fleeing from Kampuchea. They told me how severe monsoon conditions destroyed the crops, how starving people were dying all along the roadside as they walked by, or maybe 1 should say crawled by in some cases because of the deprivation. Certainly, it was a fine noble and humane gesture that Canada should accept some of these victims of starvation, war, racism and genocide. However, unless we recognize that these refugees are but the symptoms of a more complex, more deeply-rooted problem, the 350,000 refugees now in camps in Southeast Asia will grow into millions.
Canada's acceptance of 50,000 refugees is, by any standards, a generous gesture toward humanity. It is, as well, of considerable assistance in relieving social pressure on our ASEAN friends. But unless Canada and the rest of the world want to face the pressure of new waves of refugees, the problem-that is, the cause of the refugee exodus-must be understood and treated with as much vigour and concern as the refugee flight itself is being treated in the world, because the refugee flight is not the problem but the symptom. The problem is economic, political and social instability of the entire region, perhaps at this time with particular reference to Kampuchea.
On the economic side, which must be looked at first, basic needs for food and water must be satisfied. Vietnam is experiencing considerable food shortages, with an estimated three million-ton shortfall this year in spite of good prospects for a satisfactory harvest expected in the next few weeks. Vietnam is unlikely to get by without experiencing considerable difficulties that you and I cannot imagine. The Vietnamese ration for food for their people is 13 kilograms of rice per month per family, and one pound of meat per month per
The Address-Mr. Wenman
family. Certainly, they will suffer. There are shortages. However, it appears they will make it through to the crop end without a substantial degree of starvation.
Kampuchea has suffered severe genocide under Pol Pot, with estimates, as I mentioned before, of up to one-third of the population bludgeoned or hacked to death under the auspices of the Pol Pot regime. Last year, severe weather conditions badly damaged crops. The sparse crop that resulted was largely destroyed in the January offensive which saw Vietnamese and Heng Samrin forces and the Pol Pot forces pillage the land in war. This series of events led to massive starvation, and it is estimated that while we sit here today 2'h. million people in Kampuchea are starving to death.
I have no way of explaining to this House or the Canadian people the feeling when you meet a father in a camp who is holding his starving son and he tells you his story. He said that the crop was poor, "We saved what rice we could until the next crop. We put it in two piles, one pile for eating and the other pile to plant. Soon the first pile was consumed. I looked at the little bit of rice left for planting. I said, 'What shall I do; plant the rice and watch it grow while my family starves to death, eat it or take it and flee for the border where we hear there may be an opportunity for some form of food?' "
What do you say to that father? In Canada I hear so many expressions of greed amongst our wealth. How can you describe the look on that father's face as he holds the skeleton of his son? There is no way to do it. But I tell you it is real; it is true; it is the tragedy of 1979 and 1980. It is a tragedy to which everyone in this House has an obligation to respond.
I was very disappointed when I put my simple motion asking for just a small amount, just encouragement and assistance to the NGO, not to give more food because there is an adequate resource available, but just to assist in the delivery of that food. I am sorry to say that this House of Commons turned down that motion. 1 have to believe it is not because they have less humanity than the United States, which just yesterday gave $7 million. Of course, not all our members have had an opportunity to visit, to share and to really know. I cannot believe those who said "no" could face that father and that child who had been reduced to skin and bones.
Kampucheans told me last month that they would return to their homes and farms if returning did not mean the prospect of their death by starvation. Surely, some level of economic aid to Kampuchea is a better alternative than further massive influxes of culturally dislocated and uprooted refugees seeking asylum in Third World countries. The seemingly universal tool of using starvation and isolation as pressure to force political change is a brutally cruel and inhuman method which will result in our generation being condemned in history.
In the short or long range, is it wise to treat Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos as lepers in the world community? The absence of western nations up to now has created a vacuum into which the Soviet Union is only too anxious to step. It would seem to me that the Vietnamese do value their freedom

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Wenman
and independence and want to preserve those values from the Soviet Union, yet at present they have no choice but to receive the Trojan Horse.
Neither the Vietnamese forces nor the Heng Samrin troops can be starved out of the region. We may well have to accept their reality in the same way as we accepted the reality of communist China. For that reason, I have called for food aid for Kampuchea and the beginning of the process for normalization of relations with the nations of Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea.
This is a substantial statement I am making and it is a substantial step. It should not be assumed that in proposing them I support communism in Southeast Asia as a liberating force or as a better way for the people of this region. Communist regimes in Southeast Asia have participated in the most inhuman acts of barbarism and human rights atrocities in this century. Communism has meant less food, less shelter, less health protection, less education, more war, more starvation and more suffering than the region has known in many centuries. That is what communism has brought.
We used to say it was a struggle between communism and the forces of free enterprise, but that old dogma does not apply any longer; that excuse no longer remains. It is a struggle between communism and communism. It is of the utmost importance to realize that the key to the success of communism in these areas is its very promise of a richer economic future. Until the west recognizes that the people of Southeast Asia require food first, and then political liberties, our hopes for a more democratic future for that unfortunate area are bound to be disappointed.
Of equal importance to the region is the stability of our ASEAN friends-Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines. The failure of communism in Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea stands in stark contrast to the increasing living standards of the ASEAN nations. Thailand is actually an exporter of food-the only one in the region. Real economic growth in Malaysia stands at 10 per cent, one of the highest rates in the world. The Philippines and Singapore, too, all have sound financial futures and are worthy of the support of this House, in my opinion.
An hon. Member; Singapore is a police state.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I would suggest to the hon. member that he take a trip to Vietnam and Singapore and then tell me where he would prefer to live; tell me where there is more freedom, more security or health and education services. I am not talking about particular governments; I am talking about systems. The answer is obvious. I ask the hon. member to think about it; he does not even have to pay a visit. Communism has not worked in Southeast Asia to the benefit of the people.
Though expected by some to fall apart because of social and political pressures caused by instability within the region, the ASEAN nations have strengthened their alliances and, correspondingly, their security and economic potential as they move into the 1980s. As the ASEAN nations move from underdeveloped to developing and finally to developed status-and

they certainly seem to be heading in that direction-they become increasingly a potential market offering trade opportunities for Canada.
Canada should seize the new opportunities provided by our acceptance of 50,000 refugees from these countries and begin a new trade initiative. I suggest we should pick up on the renewed interest of the prime minister of Thailand in a new Pacific community organization by organizing a Pacific Rim conference. In so doing, the Government of Canada could recognize that the Far East is really the near west and introduce a Canadian face into these markets. British Columbia's request for a trade and convention centre should be accepted as a first step in this direction. Such a centre should not be an exposition area for Pacific Rim imports but, rather, an exposition of the productivity and potential of Canadian manufacturers and producers, emphasizing Canadian exports. It should emphasize Canadian exports and provide a meeting place for the nations of the Pacific Rim generally within the region of Southeast Asia.
We must recognize that the major markets of the world are there in the sense that they have the major populations. These are growing markets, markets which are expanding. In Europe and in the United States we must compete in mature markets where competition is more intense. Opportunity is greater in the Pacific Rim because the countries there are maturing and developing. It is important that we move in at this stage, get in on the bottom floor of the trading process. This would be of mutual interest to both Canada and the countries of Southeast Asia.
Mr. Speaker, my eyes have been opened as a result of my visit to the region. I hope the eyes of Parliament will be opened, as well, as the region reaches out to Canada, not just the ASEAN nations but the nations of Vietnam and even of Laos and Kampuchea. All the nations of Southeast Asia are opening to us. It is up to us to respond and accept the challenge of the 1980s in Southeast Asia.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I enter the debate today with a little bit of-


An hon. Member:: Reluctance?


Eugene Whelan: -reluctance maybe, and maybe not; but I do enter it with some hesitancy because of the things which have been said, especially by the member who spoke just before me.
I could not help but be impressed by the things he said, and I will touch on them later on. However, it seems that the hon. member may be trying to convince someone who is already convinced, especially on this side. After having read what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) said, and after having read what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) said, 1 have some reservations about how the government is getting its point across to hon. members opposite who are backbenchers.
I want to congratulate Mr. Speaker and the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), whom I have known for some years.
October 16, 1979

He has been in this House for five years as a member of the opposition. It has been a long time since members of this House sat, and when I was contemplating speaking in the House, I was worried about how to act. After going over some records, I found that since confederation this government has taken the longest time between dissolution before an election and reconvening this House to do the business of the country.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said that we should not rehash the election campaign. After having gone through the campaign, I find that rather startling. I can understand why the Prime Minister does not want to rehash certain parts of the campaign. We were the ones who were supposed to have no use for Parliament; Parliament was something we did not want to bq bothered with!
I ask hon. members here, or anyone in the country, to ask themselves who has respect for Parliament. In one of the last public statements I remember his making before his passing, even the right hon. member for Prince Albert said that this House should be resumed in August of this year to get on with the important decisions this country and this government were faced with. This House was not resumed. We waited and waited, and finally the decision that the House would be reconvened in early October was made. As a long-time member of this House, I find that to be something of an affront to elected members.
We can wait an eternity for some government ministers whom we have the right to question, but we will not be able to question them as elected members of this House because they are in the other place. There are three of them. I have responsibilities to my constituency for things other than agriculture. I represent a large number of auto workers who are concerned about industry and trade; but where is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? He is in the other place.
I read the other day that one of the members of the other place said that they have more time to question those ministers because they do not have to be bothered about electors. Some members of the other place think they represent electors in some fashion or form, and they think they can question on my behalf cabinet ministers who are administering the business of this country. Never can they question them on my behalf. As far as I am concerned, no one can question them on my behalf. I do not want members of the other place to be doing so, because the people of Essex-Windsor sent me to question ministers on their behalf, but I cannot do it when they are in the other place.
I find that to be an affront to Parliament. Who has the real concern about Parliament? In the election campaign we were supposed to be the bad guys; we had no use for this place. The people told the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that they did not want him as their representative, but he was put into the other place. At one time I put down a private member's bill in this place to abolish the other place. I never thought the other place would be used to this extent. If I had known it would, I would have supported the hon. member for
The Address-Mr. Whelan
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who brings in a bill nearly every session to get rid of that place.
The other place was never set up as an elected assembly, as some people seem to think. There are countries-and the hon. member who spoke before me mentioned some-where non-elected people govern. Surely we are not going to allow that to continue here. Surely those brilliant members of Parliament from Toronto and from Ontario-and there are many of them-and those brilliant members from out west or from all over Canada, could fill those positions just as well, but the Minister of Justice, the Minister of State for CIDA and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce do so from the other place. Boy, oh boy; democracy runs wild!
The right to question those people was taken away from those who are obliged by their electors to do so. I am not saying that those three people are not capable, but they are not in this place. They are not in this democratic institution which we all know. In a democracy people are elected. In light of such use of Parliament, we should ask ourselves who has respect for Parliament. By your actions you shall be known, and I say this government shall be known by its actions in the election campaign.
Lord knows, I was confronted with this in the about 62 constituencies I visited. We were the ones who abused Parliament; we were the ones who had no use for it. We were not sitting for so long that for a while I thought the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) discovered he could save money by not having Parliament convene at all. He might have been recommending to the Prime Minister just that kind of thing, because he talks about saving money all the time.
The new Minister of Agriculture has had four months or so to get things in working order, if they were out of working order. It is obvious that he likes the programs the former government and the former minister of agriculture were carrying out for agriculure in Canada, because he is carrying them on. I will touch on that more later on.
The Minister of Agriculture tells of how many committees of cabinet he belongs to. I say congratulations to him. I was a member of only two full-time committees and three ad hoc committees of cabinet, but one of the ad hoc committees of which I was a member was more time-consuming than the full-time committees because it dealt with trade and tariffs and the Geneva trade negotiations which were going on. It was rewarding and educational to be on that committee, because I discovered some of the problems in trade to which I thought I knew all the solutions.
I did not have all the answers, but the committee continued to fight for the things it thought were best for society as a whole. Members had to give a little and take a little, and that took a long time. It took four years, and in the last two there was not a month and sometimes not a week in which meetings did not take place. Sometimes there were two or three meetings a week. Our chief negotiator, Mr. Warren, would return and say, "I must meet with you. No matter what you are doing, you will have to cancel it". We met with him. The

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Whelan
Geneva trade negotiations were very important, perhaps the most important negotiations in many years.
The new Minister of Agriculture must agree with me because I saw his press release telling how much those negotiations meant to agriculture and how important they were, but one would almost think he was responsible for them. We on this side were, Mr. Speaker. Those negotiations were completed before the election was called. Not everything was published, but long weeks, months and years were spent in multilateral trade negotiations. I must say that they were tiring, but it was rewarding to know that we made gains for agriculture. We got some protection for certain commodities which we did not have previously. It was necessary to encourage that kind of production.
I was asked the other day about what I thought, because there was some discussion. I have not seen anything official about it publicly but apparently the government was asked to remove the tariff protection which we had gained for tomato paste. They asked, "What do you think should be done about that?" They should make sure of the supply of paste in Canada at present because we raised it previously-I am not sure of the exact figure-to 13 cents a pound or to 13 per cent, in accordance with what the tomato growers and the processing industry wanted. So the government should make sure there is enough of that product in Canada to take care of the needs, and it must make sure that some trader is not given an unfair advantage over the processor who may be enlarging his or her facility at this time to take care of future supply from the tomato industry.
Southwestern Ontario shows a great potential for the production of that product: it seems to be unlimited in the view of those of us who have been associated with that industry. There is no reason, for instance, why some of the big chains, restaurants or whatever, should have to use an imported product to serve the people whom they are licensed to serve. In my view, Canadian products should always be used.
They say that when I was minister of agriculture I devoted too much time to agriculture. They said the former minister of agriculture, the member for Essex-Windsor, devoted the majority of his time to agriculture. Sadly, but proudly, I say that I accept this uninformed criticism that Whelan was, and is, always concerned about farmers, agriculture production, food, farm incomes and the like, because I say that in any country you want to check in the world-I am sure the hon. member opposite must have found that during his trips-those who neglect agriculture make the rest of society suffer for that.
According to the facts that 1 have, no ministry ever took over a healthier agricultural industry than the present Government of Canada. That is why the minister has so much time. I think he said he is on five cabinet committees. It is because of all the work I did. He is reaping the benefits of it. I have not yet received a "thank you" letter from him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Whelan.)


Eugene Whelan: He said that he is seeing three to ten farm groups a day; and he is also on five cabinet committees? There are not any cabinet ministers in the House. I do not know how long their meetings are and what they are dealing with, but to be on five cabinet committees and to see three to ten delegations a day is quite something. I do not believe I ever saw ten groups in a day, although I saw several in a day. Say he averages seven a day in the four months, and he works seven days a week, that is 49 a week. He must have seen every farm organization that exists in Canada, if he sees that many a day.
That would be pretty well working like some of the doctors who abuse medicare. You come into the doctor's office and he says, "How are you?". He tells you to take an aspirin or a 222, and then he opts out. That is what he would say at the end of it, because he would send me a bill with an increase of 15 per cent or 20 per cent.
But, you know, this is all well and fine because Parliament has not been sitting and you can see more people on farms when Parliament is not sitting and you can be more often around the country in those circumstances. But I never neglected my job when I was minister of agriculture, because I travelled on Wednesday nights, Friday nights and weekends, and the record will show that at those times I was most often busy in many parts of Canada and many cities, no matter how big or small.
The new Minister of Agriculture is a farmer, and that is an asset. I think one has to get out and see the country from coast to coast and understand the people because agriculture in our country is so diversified. I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Elgin, for being bright enough, smart enough and intelligent enough for the Prime Minister to have appointed him Minister of Agriculture over such outstanding members as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), or the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees).
The Prime Minister had no other political choice but to select his Minister of Agriculture from Ontario, because it would have been bad in Ontario had he not done so. I think the Minister of Agriculture from Ontario is well qualified, but let him not wavfer in his determination to get the things that are needed in agriculture to make it healthy. Let him not waver in continuing on with the Farm Credit Corporation to raise funds from farmers themselves. It has been over four months, and farmers need this. But let us not forget that the farmers' net income from 1977 to 1978 increased 30 per cent. That was contrary to anything the economists had said would happen. But it did happen and the farmers' net income increased by 30 per cent in 1978 over 1977.
The cost of land increased by 14 per cent. This, in itself, underscores the tremendous need for increased funding of the Farm Credit Corporation. This government should practice what it preaches and put up the money for an industry which benefits all Canadians. It is ripe for expansion. In fact, the agricultural industry has been left in very good shape. As I said, it has been expanding so profitably that even banking
October 16, 1979

institutions are lending farmers more money than they ever have before, and they are investing in land.
Let us hope that land does not exceed the price of gold, but I heard a banker say the other day that the cost of land is practically the same as the cost of gold. Perhaps you can find more gold-that is the difference, he said-but you cannot find more productive land in the world, and land is much more important. You could die in this chamber if it were filled with gold and there were no food here; but with food here, we could live and talk forever. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker?
So when the bankers are taking this attitude toward farms, and the records show that for the last three years some of the leading banking institutions in this country have taken a real step forward in lending money to the agricultural industry and to our farmers, I say that in itself is a glowing tribute to the previous Liberal administration and to the former minister of agriculture. I have to say that, humble as I am, but I want to say again that we saw a press release which said that the farm improvement loan administration has been turned over to the Minister of Agriculture. That was done before the election, and I want to correct the record on that.
I want to encourage the government, but 1 do not know which minister is handling the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I saw some confusion in the previous government, but it is even worse in this one. You have three ministers handling that department. Two of them said they would answer questions here, and one is in the other place. We are one of few nations in the world who do not look after agriculture the way we should, apart from what the Minister of Agriculture does. This government has not changed that much. Otto and I used to fight all the time about the Wheat Board and who should have control of it, but when we went to world meetings I was embarrassed when I had to say that the minister of transport handles wheat, or the minister of justice handles wheat, ifhe same thing will happen to the present Minister of Agriculture. That is ridiculous and as asinine as could be.
We have made a decision to establish the Agricultural Export Development Corporation made up of people who know the agricultural business, and 51 per cent of which would be made up of producers. Some people ask, what do producers know about agricultural export? Well, they know as much or a lot more than some city slicker who is in the bond market or works in some stock exchange. Or an economist might know more about it, when he goes to talk about it in some other part of the world.
As minister of agriculture, going to many different parts of the world, such as the World Food Council meetings, FAO meetings, etc., I was appalled on seeing some of the people who really tried hard but who had only limited knowledge, not the knowledge they needed to understand really what those people were talking about when they were talking about trading in agriculture.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
The Address-Mr. Whelan


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch I was talking about some of the matters I thought were important in agriculture. I was reminding the House and anyone interested of some of the things we should be doing, some of the things we are doing, and some of the things the government should be doing.
I should like to return to the Speech from the Throne and express my sincere disappointment in the little mention of agriculture. The only thing mentioned in the entire Speech from the Throne which had anything to do with agriculture was Prince Rupert and hopper cars. Was there anything new about the agreement concerning the Prince Rupert elevator being turned over to a different authority? No, Mr. Speaker. That agreement was well on the way when the election was called. Is there anything new about hopper cars? No, Mr. Speaker. Already we have purchased 8,000 hopper cars for the transportation of grain in Canada. I am disappointed in the government, in the party which makes itself out to be a friend of rural Canada.
1 should like to remind the House how many good rural members of Parliament there are opposite. I knew some of them but not all of them before they came to the House. When I look qt the front bench opposite, I only see one member who is a real farmer, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). The Conservative party has many capable rural people elected to the House who know farming and agriculture. One would have thought that at least two of those members would have occupied the government front benches. When the Liberal party formed the government, we had two members in cabinet who represented rural constituencies, yet supposedly we were not a friend of rural Canada. One member of the Liberal government was the former minister of agriculture from Prince Edward Island who was the acting minister of agriculture when I was not present, the Hon. Dan MacDonald, the former member for Cardigan. He was a farmer in his own right, a war veteran, minister of veterans affairs and acting minister of agriculture when I was absent. I had his strong support at all times in cabinet.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has already made a slight noise. Some people call it a shuffle because he gave one minister who had no authority some authority. May he do that with one of his rural backbenchers in the very near future. We all remember the morning Parliament opened. When we arrived in Ottawa, it snowed outside. When one looks at the Speech from the Throne and what it contains for agriculture,

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Whelan
one realizes the biggest snow job was in the other place because the Speech from the Throne contained nothing about agriculture.
Earlier today I said that we ought to get on with the Canadian agricultural export proposal. We promoted this idea. For over two years it was in the making. Several months have passed and nothing seems to have been done about it. The only thing I heard in the House yesterday was that we lost a small agricultural export contract to the Middle East for poultry products. The minister did not elaborate on what that was, except to say that it was lost. This is an area we must really sell. We require people who are knowledgeable in agriculture, not stockbrokers who are saying to the farmers, "You have the greatest know-how of probably any group of agricultural producers in the whole world. You produce and we will sell for you, even if we know nothing about your products".
When 1 was minister of agriculture I was almost of the idea that one can be the best cattle breeder who knew and used the best genetic breeding programs in the world, etc., who can show his wares and we will sell them for him. The same would apply to other agricultural products. We were saying that farmers did not have the intelligence to enter into the market. Those days are long gone. For a farmer to be successful today, he is as much a businessman as any other person in the business world. He is required to be many things in order to make his farming operation a success.
While I am dealing with matters of international concern, I should like to mention the hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member who had visited Vietnam. On these matters of international concern, opposition members of the House were relieved to hear, via the press in September, that Canada would not have to hang its head in shame for lack of commitment in the world food council. It gave me great personal satisfaction to know that the moral leadership Canada gave to this organization, a branch of the United Nations, in 1978 when I had the honour to lead the delegation, would not be frittered away for a "messy potage". But since then the ungalvanized-some say heartless-but certainly rigid, if not cruel, speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) has the population of Canada worried about our commitment to international aid.
Although I do not quote from The Globe and Mail very often, I should like to refer to a letter to the editor which expressed the anxiety of Canadians toward the ambivalence of the government in matters of external aid. The letter indicates that the policy of the government is very much like telling a patient dying of cancer, "I cannot help because I have a cold". If this government has any heart, knows anything about international politics or has any business sense, it should clearly come down on the side of international assistance and not on the side of those who would have a balanced budget at the expense of international aid.
O)
When I hear what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) has had to say at world meetings and so on, I am of the

opinion that the economy in this country is good. Then I read what such a noteworthy person as Lord Thompson said when he was bidding for that big enterprise in Canada, that he knew of no other country in which it was better to make an investment, and he went on to elaborate on the economic strength of the country. Then when I see that the government is intending to cut back our aid, I wonder.
And talking about expenditures, members on this side of the House applaud the $18 million guarantees finally released for this year to producer organizations under the Advance Payments for Crops Act brought in by the previous Liberal government and proclaimed on August 15, 1977. All I can say is that the present Prime Minister took an awfully long time to call this House together on the pretence that his cabinet team was working to learn their jobs and to deal with the administration of their country, as I said earlier today.
The Minister of Agriculture must have been too busy with all those cabinet committees to give the impression of any dispatch in agricultural matters in this throne speech. We also applaud the $1 million of federal Financial assistance released to help build increased feed grain capacity in eastern Ontario and Quebec this summer under the previous Liberal administration.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) has talked about how long the strike at the port of Montreal by the grain handlers has been going on. I wonder if the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) is having any input into that. The strike is certainly having an effect in terms of extra cost for the feeders in la belle province and it has been going on I believe since May. As of today it has not been settled, and the shipping season is almost over.
I also encourage the government to continue the Liberal government's program of assisting the Canadian dairy processing industry expansion and, more particularly, exports. I am heartened to see that the hard work the previous administration put into helping the evaporated milk processing plant in Ste. Claire de Dorchester, belonging to la Cooperative Laitiere du Sud de Quebec, along with the storage facilities at the port of Quebec to export production from the co-operative, has been approved of by this government. That was our policy. The dairy industry in this country has never been healthier. Hon. members may remember that some months back it was said that the industry was in chaos. There is not a dairy industry in the world run better than the dairy industry of Canada, and we can take credit for that. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for continuing with that program.
In the minister's press release he said that the industry was dead on, that they were .3 per cent off production guidelines. If all other industries that do not deal with biological entities such as a cow could only be so good! If Chrysler in my area could be so good, imagine what their financial position would be. I can remember when people were saying that these policies which I proposed and propagated were bad, but they are now successful and are costing the government less and less all the time. I was one of the few ministers of agriculture who in his term did not give taxpayer dollars to the poultry

October 16, 1979

industry. That industry is an efficient operation and is below the anti-inflation board guidelines.
If all other things in our society were in the same position as the poultry industry, we would be even more so the country of admiration and the country that most people would like to be part of. 1 refer to that great country we call Canada.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has now become obvious that a new and far more effective approach must be taken to stimulating the economy without increasing inflation. We must find a practical way to make available the jobs that are needed to overcome the serious unemployment which exists in the country today and which is costing the country $4.5 billion a year in unemployment pay-outs. These pay-outs are a completely unproductive expenditure because the people who receive them do no productive work and make no contribution to the economy. To stimulate the economy and create the jobs we need, we must greatly reduce our annual trade deficit of more than $12 billion a year in fully manufactured products-the ones that produce the jobs-which is increasing each year by more than $2 billion. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has stated recently that if we can overcome this very large annual deficit, we can produce 800,000 new jobs.
In recent years the former government tried to stimulate the economy in two ways. The first was introduced by John Turner when he was minister of finance, and consisted of making a very large reduction in corporation taxes. This was done in the hope that industry would use the money to buy the new plant, equipment and production systems necessary to increase productivity, and by so doing lower costs and selling prices and increase sales. The plan failed because industry had three alternatives for spending the money. They could either buy the necessary new equipment; pay out the money in extra dividends; or put the money into company reserve. Unfortunately, a great deal of the money was spent in the latter two ways.
More recently, the former government tried to stimulate the economy by cutting sales and income taxes, in the hope that the money would be spent on buying more Canadian products. This plan failed because the people had four alternatives for spending this extra money. They could either buy more Canadian products; buy more foreign-made products; take trips to the United States and abroad; or put the money into savings accounts or government bonds. A great deal of the money was spent in the latter three ways, and these plans failed to stimulate the economy in any appreciable way on each occasion when they were tried.
It has now become clear that production and employment in Canada can only be increased substantially by convincing a great many Canadians and people living in other countries that Canadian products are a better buy in price, quality and design than the ones they are now buying. 1 believe that the only way the job can be done is by offering incentives to reduce costs, and thereby selling prices, and to improve quality and design. If we can do these things, we can increase our share of the existing buying power in the hands of Canadians
The Address-Mr. Hees
and potential customers abroad, and increase production in Canada without increasing inflation.
The kind of incentives I have in mind are those which will induce substantial improvements in the following fields: lowering labour costs on potential new business; increasing productivity; increasing research and development; expanding export trade; processing more of our primary products in this country.
First of all, what must be done to reduce labour costs on potential new business to levels which will enable Canadians to compete successfully for that business? There is a great deal of business which Canadian companies are unable to compete for because of low labour costs in countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, and many others. These low wages are made possible by government subsidies paid on housing, food, clothing and other essentials of every day living. Labour costs in many of these countries are so low that their products can sell in Canada at prices which are well below the Canadian cost of production and still provide a satisfactory profit to the foreign producers.
If Canadian companies are to be able to compete for a good proportion of this business, and thereby obtain additional employment for Canadians and additional profits for their shareholders, they must have an incentive which will enable them to reduce their labour costs on this potential new business to a level where they are within striking distance of these low foreign rates. Then, by accepting a lower than normal margin of profit on this extra business in order to get started, they can compete for these orders and stand a good chance of obtaining a reasonable proportion of them.
First, let us take a look at the money which is available for use in reaching this objective. As 1 have said, we are today paying out $4.5 billion per year in unemployment insurance benefits to people who cannot find work. Of this $4.5 billion, the Canadian government has been contributing $2.2 billion per year, because it is responsible for meeting the total cost of all unemployment insurance benefits when unemployment exceeds 4 per cent per year.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, people receive 60 per cent of their former pay when they are receiving unemployment benefits. It would be very practical indeed for the government to draw on the $2.2 billion per year it is now paying out as its share of unemployment benefits, to contribute toward the wage costs of new products which are not now produced in Canada, and which could be produced if a reasonable subsidy were made available. In this way, useful and satisfying work would be made available to our unemployed people at a cost which would be lower than the cost of unemployment insurance. People so employed would then make a positive contribution to the Canadian economy, instead of the negative contribution which is the case today. They would also start paying income tax to help ease the strain on our overstrained finances.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce would examine each application for assistance in competing with the kind of foreign products I have mentioned, and would decide

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Hees
what percentage of the wage cost of the potential new product should be paid by the government to enable this new line of production to start up in this country.
I believe that the wage subsidies which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce would decide are justified in each individual case should be paid for a two-year period in order to allow the new line of production a fair chance to get started. During this two-year period, the company would be allowed to write off the cost of all machinery necessary to bring the new line into production. The wage subsidy should then be gradually phased out over a reasonable period, during which it would be up to the producer to steadily increase his productivity to take up the slack.
As soon as the new policy is announced by the government, Canadian businessmen should immediately start surveying the Canadian market to see what imported products not now made in Canada could be produced and sold here if wage subsidies such as I have outlined are made available. They should also travel abroad to find out what products are being bought in the export market which such a wage subsidy would bring within reach.
The second matter I would like to deal with is the need to induce greater productivity in our economy, so that we can further lower costs and selling prices and become increasingly competitive in the market place. To do so, we must offer incentives which will persuade producers that they will be able to pay for the new plant, machinery and production systems they will have to buy in a reasonably short space of time, and in this way make it as easy as possible for them to make the usually high expenditures involved. The kind of incentive I have in mind would be one whereby, first, all capital expenditures may be written off in one year and, second, a plant would be rewarded in the form of a tax rebate at the end of the year in proportion to its increase in productivity during the year compared to the base year-the last full year before the plan goes into operation.
This form of incentive has been very effective in increasing productivity in such countries as Japan and West Germany, where spectacular results have been achieved since the end of World War II. There is no reason why such an incentive would be any less successful in this country.
Next, I would like to deal with the steps which I think should be taken to increase the amount of research and development work which is carried on by industry in this country. One of the reasons we have had to rely so heavily on foreign investment in the past is that investment brought with it technology which was produced by research done in the country where the capital originates. To be less reliant on foreign investment, to capture new markets which are looking for new and better designed products, and to lower costs and become more competitive, it is obvious that we must carry out a great deal more research and development in this country.
To bring this about, we should allow industry to write off 200 per cent of the cost of current and capital expenditures on research and development in excess of those made in the base year, the last full year before the program is introduced. In
[Mr. Hecs.J
addition to writing off the full cost in one year, it will put a considerable cash reward in the pocket of the company undertaking the additional research.
This kind of program has been successful in significantly increasing the volume of industrial research in countries where it has been introduced, and will prove equally effective in Canada. The former government's plan to allow a write-off of 150 per cent, which was announced a year ago, was an exact copy of the plan which the Conservative government introduced in 1961 and which worked very well indeed. A 200 per cent write-off will be even more effective.
The fourth incentive which I suggest is one designed to promote greater sales in the export market. Because of this country's great dependence on the United States market-70 per cent of our export sales-and the steady move of that country toward protectionism, the development of additional markets has become particularly necessary if we are to increase our volume of exports, or even maintain our present level of export sales.
Making sales in other countries depends to a very large extent upon doing four things successfully. First, going abroad and making personal contact with potential buyers; second, finding out what is required to meet the competition in those markets; third, returning to Canada and producing a product which can compete successfully; and fourth, displaying the product effectively before potential customers.
The incentive, I suggest, would allow producers to write off 200 per cent of all expenses connected with, first, making sales trips abroad; second, displaying their products at foreign trade fairs; and third, any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market. These expenses would be in excess of those made in the base year, the year before the plan goes into operation.
Not only would all such expenses be completely written off in the year when they are made, but a considerable cash bonus would accrue to the company for its additional sales promotion activities. The kind of incentive I have mentioned will greatly encourage the kind of activity which is essential if increased sales are to be made.
Another thing which the government should do to help increase the sale of Canadian products abroad is to organize "Fly and Buy" missions, whereby the important buyers from the principal markets of the world would be brought to Canada once a year to see Canadian products displayed in giant trade shows in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and view our heavy machinery in the factories where it is made across the country. Such operations produced spectacular results when they were used in Canada between 1961 and 1963, and they paid for themselves many times over by the additional business which they generated.


Mr. Beattie:: The minister then was a good salesman.


George Harris Hees: Finally, I would like to discuss the need for this country to process more of our raw materials to their finished
October 16, 1979

state, and what should be done to bring this about. For too long we have been shipping out of Canada a far too large a proportion of our primary products to be processed to their final stages of production in other countries. These countries thereby gain the many advantages of employment, taxes and profits which accrue from this further processing.
In Canada we have the skilled manpower, the managerial skill along with comparatively cheap power, and excellent transportation facilities. These things are needed for this further processing, and it is about time Canada started doing something about this. Now, what should and can be done? Thirty years ago the government of Ontario introduced a plan which has been largely responsible for the spectacular expansion of the pulp and paper industry in that province during the intervening years. Ontario required companies to process a far higher proportion of the logs which were cut, a large proportion of which had been shipped in their raw state to paper mills in the United States.
What has worked so well in the case of the pulp and paper industry in Ontario can work equally well in other primary industries across the country. For instance, it should apply to all raw materials being shipped to other countries for further processing because of the great dependence of other countries on our primary products to feed their manufacturing processes.
It is obvious that a certain proportion of the raw materials we produce must be exported in the raw state, but not nearly the proportion that is the case today. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should now undertake an intensive study of our primary industries to determine what proportion of the primary products we produce can reasonably require to be processed to their finished state in this country.
Having decided what proportions of our various primary products should be further processed in Canada, we must produce an incentive sufficiently attractive to persuade those who normally export our raw materials that it will be profitable for them to build the plants necessary to carry out this additional processing.
It has become painfully obvious that the grants now provided by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, although useful, have not proved attractive enough to bring to areas of slow growth sufficient new industry to reverse the dangerously high rates of unemployment that have persisted in those areas for many years.
As well as the DREE grants now available to areas of slow growth, we must also make available an additional incentive to permit new plants processing primary products in areas of slow growth to pay no federal taxes in the first 15 years of profitable operation. Starting with the sixteenth year, the company would pay 10 per cent of full taxation, and this would increase by a further 10 per cent each year, until the company is paying full taxation in the twenty-fifth year.
My conversations with leading businessmen across the country have convinced me that this incentive, added to the present DREE grants for slow growth areas, will prove sufficiently
The Address-Mr. Deniger
attractive to accomplish what has to be done. It is obvious that this 15-year tax-free period, and the following ten years of gradual taxation, will involve no loss of tax revenue to the government, because these taxes are not being paid now and will not be paid in the future if potential producers of finished products are not persuaded by this incentive to build the necessary plants in Canada.
In conclusion, the five incentives which I have outlined will pay for themselves many times over in the following ways. First, we can drastically cut the present far too high expenditure on unemployment insurance by stimulating the economy and enabling people to find work; second, we can greatly increase tax revenues, because more people will be working and paying income taxes; more commodities will be sold, and thus additional commodity taxes will be generated; and the increased volume of business will lower unit costs of production and make available more profits to tax.
It should also be borne in mind that tax rebates are not paid until July 1 of the following year, and by that time the improvements in the economy, which these incentives are aimed at achieving, will have been felt for some time. For this reason, these incentives will not bring about a "stimulative deficit".
I am convinced that if we can bring into operation a plan such as I have outlined, we can stimulate the economy without increasing inflation, make an important start on overcoming that $12 billion a year trade deficit we have in fully manufactured products and start creating the 800,000 new jobs which the CMA tells us can be created if effective incentives to increase production are introduced. The time to start introducing those incentives is now.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, like those hon. members who spoke before me in this debate, I want to congratulate both members of my family, that is the new generation of politicians, as the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) put it so well, on the remarkable way in which they sponsored the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
In the first speech in this House, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) defined the direction and the purpose of our role in the opposition as being positive and constructive. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) himself in his speech urged hon. members to participate fully, candidly and with conviction in all debates and recognized that his opponents could have different approaches and priorities from his.
Mr. Speaker, I am in this House today to rise for the first time as member of the wonderful riding of Laprairie, fully aware of the tremendous vote of confidence the voters put in me on May 22 and the responsibilities that arise therefrom, because it is a task requiring a total commitment which I accept with gratitude, and I will endeavour to meet the expectations of my constituents and serve them faithfully.

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Deniger
It is in this context, Mr. Speaker, that I rise today-my birthday, incidentally-to share with this House and the people of Canada my impressions on the Speech from the Throne, the policies of this government, as well as my vision of this country.

Some specifics of the throne speech pleased me. If I may be permitted, I wish to examine these aspects as frankly and as sincerely as I am able.
First, Mr. Speaker, freedom of information legislation is urgent and fundamental. Canadians have a right to know not only how a decision is taken, but also what grounds the decision is based upon. Unfettered access to information, with strictly limited exceptions, encourages all Canadians to participate in the decision-making processes of government. If such legislation is conscientiously adhered to, our electorate will become more responsible. Such a bill would be a fitting testament to the concept of participatory democracy, as espoused by my leader when he first became prime minister.
Second, 1 praise the efforts of this government to extend the power of Parliament, and I hope to encourage all measures which hasten this end. Two areas demand attention: the role of private members must be augmented, and the standing committees of the House of Commons must be strengthened.
I am among those who envy the influence of the American congressional committees, although I have no desire to follow everything I see there. If this government is truly sincere in implementing its avowed intentions, it will not interfere with the right of committees to set their own agendas and summon any witnesses which they wish to hear. This will allow all members to explore and evaluate various policy positions prior to the time party commitments and rivalries become involved.
May 1 test the good will of members opposite by making one sobering observation? One political participant has set forth the argument that, following a vigorous campaign waged on the pressing issues facing the electorate, the Prime Minister might be tempted to engage "in a ploy to sidestep the real issues facing the country by talking about such things as parliamentary reform". I trust that this observer now feels that this government's preoccupation with parliamentary reform will not preclude addressing other more pressing social and economic problems, for he is now serving as Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). His remarks were reported in Hansard on October 11, 1974, when he replied to the Speech from the Throne of that year.
Yes, Parliament needs reform. However, I am sure that the Prime Minister does not want to insult the intelligence of Canadians by implying that Parliament only began its tumultuous descent with the arrival of my leader, for such is simply not the case. There is a myth, protected by this government, perpetuated by their ignorance of history, that there was once a golden age of Parliaments where wit and wisdom flourished in an atmosphere of gentlemanly camaraderie and public spirit. Such a golden age never existed. There is, in the

respected and learned Lord Bryce's seminal work entitled Modern Democracies, an entire chapter headed "The Decline of Legislatures". Only the ill-informed can claim parliamentary reform to be solely a contemporary concern, or solely a Canadian problem, since Lord Bryce's treatise was published in 1921. Although now seized by the Tories with envangelical fervour, parliamentary reform will remain a periodic concern of parliamentarians everywhere.
Nor can it be claimed that the Liberal party has a newly found respect for Parliament now that we are in opposition. Let me remind the members opposite of our party's heritage, starting with the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which was the first government in the commonwealth to extend a special sessional allowance to the official leader of the opposition. That was in 1905.
Third, I applaud in the Speech from the Throne all the references made to consultation, co-operation, harmony, information, and right to dissent as a real effort to govern. I qualify all of these as processes. But one must bear in mind that this country is faced, on the one hand, with severe limits on its economy while still having to give more rights to its people, and this positive approach can only succeed if it leads to real and meaningful content.
[ Translation]
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that notwithstanding the few points that I have mentioned, 1 am very disappointed with the Speech from the Throne. I did not expect that a government which has been so long in the opposition would take a band-aid approach in its first throne speech. When I say that I am disappointed, I am thinking partly about the complaints of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hargrave) who, in his comments on the throne speech to the Medicine Hat media, said that he could not explain the fact that a government elected largely by rural residents did not even mention the word agriculture. However, I am thinking even more about the attitude of the Progressive Conservative government in international affairs. I am thinking about the image of Canada, which has gained throughout the world a reputation of which we can be proud, thanks to the efforts first of Mr. Pearson, and then of our present leader. Mr. Speaker, who among us is not proud to pin the Canadian flag to his buttonhole when travelling abroad? This reputation is now being threatened. In spite of this, the Progressive Conservative government does not even talk about international affairs in its Speech from the Throne.
When I say that I am disappointed, I mean that the Speech from the Throne does not even say that there is in Canada a government committed to separate Quebec from the rest of the country, and that all Quebeckers, like myself, will soon have to vote on that issue, Mr. Speaker. It seems as though this problem does not even exist for the Progressive Conservatives.


Mr. La Salle:: You are the ones who created the problem!
October 16, 1979


Pierre Deniger: As a matter of fact, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) agrees with me. However, these are only three examples and 1 could give many others, Mr. Speaker.

1 cannot explain why a party so long in opposition would bring such a narrow-minded view to the Speech from the Throne. 1 have tried to understand. 1 have tried to read everything that the Prime Minister has said and 1 think 1 now understand.
In a well-written article in the September issue of Saturday Night, Sandra Gwyn recalls an interview she had with the then leader of the opposition three years ago. She was struck by the fact that he had no sense of personal destiny, and that he mistrusted the words "vision" and "grand design". Well, three years have passed. The member for Yellowhead is now Prime Minister of Canada, and there is still no vision, no grand design.


Mr. Nystrom:: No PetroCan.


Pierre Deniger: How long must Canadians wait? There are people on this earth who cannot see the forest for the trees. The more 1 read the Speech from the Throne, the more I witness their present policies, the more 1 realize that their approach is to avoid confrontation at all costs. I am greatly disappointed in the Tories. This approach is irresponsible, and even if the Tories had such an approach in opposition, I had hoped that it would disappear with the advent of power. I can only conclude that I was wrong.

In such an atmosphere of co-operation proposed by our leader and accepted by the right hon. Prime Minister, I would like to explain in this House why I am a centralist, and why I am very concerned by this government's approach. Political history in Canada shows that the central power becomes more important when there is a crisis such as the First or the Second World War, or the depression of the thirties. There is decentralization in times of peace and prosperity only.
Mr. Speaker, never has this nation been so threatened. Many people may think I am referring only to Quebec. It has always been my view that regional disparity coupled with blind regionalism possibly were Canada's biggest threat. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that in the year 1978 there are governments like the one in British Columbia to stop the sale of MacMillan Bloedel to Canadian Pacific Investments, because the latter have their head office in Montreal rather than Vancouver? Why is it that the government of Ontario, in its transport supplies, chose to buy in Ontario at higher cost rather than accept the significantly lower bid of a Quebec corporation, namely Bombardier MLW of course? Why is it that Quebec blocked the sale of Credit Foncier because majority control would have been held by Nova Scotia interests? Why is it that Alberta, in order to attract industries, offers its energy below the Canadian price?
The Address-Mr. Deniger
These are only examples, Mr. Speaker, but who in Canada speaks for Canadians? You remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Ford Company chose to establish in Ontario, some people in Quebec accused federal members of betraying their province, notwithstanding the fact that Ford was considering two sites only, one in the United States and the other in Canada. Rather than fighting Ford's choice, I was proud to say there was nothing wrong with it. They had not chosen Ontario, they had chosen Canada.
Canada is threatened with disintegration. An eminent authority, Mr. Ronald Watts, describes the sources of strain as "regional divergences of political demands, weakness of interregional communications, the evaporation of transitional inducements to union, and external influences." I am worried by what I see. That is why I am called to serve here, for I am a Canadian nationalist.
1 am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for this rare opportunity to speak freely, unhampered by the usual strict procedural limitations. 1 first came to Ottawa in 1973 as a civil servant and became a ministerial aide in 1976. It is now my pleasure to represent the constituency of Laprairie in the House of Commons. Originally, I thought of Canada solely as a country divided into two camps, one French-speaking and the other English-speaking. I saw this as a grave problem and I still do. Today, however, I regard the urgent problem presented by regional disparities as being even more pressing. If we are to surmount the crisis facing us we must work out our common problems together; we must recall the shared experiences, good and bad, which have brought our people together in the past and we must draw upon those experiences to facilitate further co-operation and common effort.
Last weekend, in Winnipeg, 1 attended a meeting of concerned Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Deniger: I am surprised that when the time comes for free and open discussion members opposite question its very existence.


Mr. Epp:: What do you mean by "open"? We were not invited.


Pierre Deniger: Several of those I met at that meeting had freely devoted years of service to public life despite discouragement. I witnessed and sympathized with their feelings of alienation. I pledged to fight to overcome their despair. I pledged to fight all regional alienation, be it western alienation, Atlantic alienation or Quebec alienation, until my enemy is vanquished.
Such a war cannot be waged through decentralization, for we would surrender the most important weapons in our arsenal. We need all the ammunition at our disposal to combat

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Ittinuar
economic inequalities between regions, without abdicating to parochial demands.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a great pleasure and an honour to be speaking in the House of Commons for the first time, and I take this opportunity to convey the respectful sentiments of my constituents in Nunatsiaq. I congratulate the respective members of the House on their election and you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election to the chair.
1 also congratulate the New Democratic Party on being receptive to having a member from the eastern Arctic among their number. When my riding is included the NDP represents a good one third of the geographic extent of Canada.
1 would also like to commend my predecessor, Mr. Walley Firth, for his hard work and dedicated service as member for the Northwest Territories, including the western Arctic, during the six years preceding the Thirty-first Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories, and especially my riding of Nunatsiaq, traditionally and historically occupied by lnuit, has been terra incognita to the rest of the world. Unknown, menacing and certainly too cold for civilized habitation, it is only recently, in the last few decades, that something of national interest in the north has taken place. This is not because of the people who live there but because the possibilities of economic development in the extractive industries promise to be profitable.
In this light, it was only in 1960 that the lnuit were given the right to vote in Canada and we have that great gentleman and parliamentarian, the late Right Hon. John G. Diefen-baker, to thank for that inestimable right. Perhaps I might put this attitude toward relations between my people and the Government of Canada in its true perspective by quoting two people. The first is the former commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Stuart M. Hodgson, who said:
The emergence of the Northwest Territories as a political and economic force promises to be the twentieth century's greatest saga. It will include industrial development on a scale suited to the size of the land, giving employment to thousands of modern pioneers. It will be a modern re-enactment of old frontier days-accelerated and magnified by world pressures of population, increased commercial demands and heightened by competition for mineral resources. It will be rocketed ahead by computer-oriented technology.
These immortal words were uttered in an atmosphere of prophetic elation in 1970. I would like now to quote one of my own people on the same subject and please understand, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the word "white" is not meant in a derogatory sense. Please do not feel slighted.
We very much dislike white people taking our land for granted. It seems they feel they can destroy our land any time they feel like it without even asking for permission. We want to have freedom of conservation with the animals. They steal the raw materials without even consulting us or giving the lnuit a percentage of what they are taking. We need to get power to control the land.
These were the words of Elijah Takkiapik spoken in 1974. The desire for control is very real today among the lnuit of Canada.
My riding of Nunatsiaq is the largest in Canada and also one of the most distinctive. It is one of only three ridings-
[Mr. Deniger.J
perhaps soon there will only be two-in which the people who were born there, and who make it their home, have virtually no democratic voice in the management of their affairs.
While it is true that we have a territorial council situated in the western Arctic in Yellowknife, this council is subject to the authority of the territorial commissioner who is not elected and is himself under the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp), and I see him across the way. How do you do?
I wish to spend the next few minutes outlining some of the specific regional problems faced by the people in my constituency. At a time when one can fly to Paris, France in less than ten hours, it often takes two days to travel from Ottawa to my home in Rankin Inlet. This increases the feeling that northern people have of being isolated from the rest of their country, but it also has serious economic consequences. The unusually high cost of living is due to increasingly high transportation costs and inadequate transportation services. A review of northern transportation is greatly needed. I am sure a review would lead to the implementation of a northern transportation subsidy or alternate means of alleviating the burden of these high costs.
To give some idea of the costs in the north, I am going to quote a couple of prices given to me yesterday from Frobisher Bay. Frobisher Bay, by the way, is the first port of call for air and sea transport in the Northwest Territories, so these would be the least costly consumer items in all Northwest Territories communities, aside from the western Arctic. Bread costs up to $2 a loaf. Reconstituted milk in Frobisher Bay costs $3.40 for two quarts and the bargain price of $6.98 for four litres. I dare not mention the price of home heating oil or gasoline because that is a joke.
Concurrent with the high cost of living is the fact that native employment is disproportionately low. The administration, which attracts many outsiders to high-paying bureaucratic jobs, has been inadequate in the area of job-training programs for local residents. Poor education and lack of adequate jobtraining leads naturally to low employment rates. At the same time our traditional livelihood-hunting, fishing and trapping-has been jeopardized by haphazard development and such regulatory controls as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the northwest territorial government game ordinance, and so forth.
One point I would like to emphasize is that the lnuit are not generally opposed to development per se. What we are opposed to is the rapid, untimely development which has been externally imposed on us; development which endangers our land, our people, our way of life; development which benefits the residents of southern Canada and which benefits even the country of West Germany in the case of uranium mining-or at least they propose such development with the help of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-and finally, development which leaves the residents of the Arctic to deal with the social and environmental consequences on their own.

October 16, 1979
I would like now to quote a former prime minister of Canada, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, who stated:
It has been said that Great Britain acquired her empire in a state of absence of mind. Apparently, we have administered these vast territories of the north in an almost continuing absence of mind.
This absence of mind has been demonstrated in the past by an attitude which sees the north as a boundless storehouse of resources juSt waiting to be exploited. This attitude has resulted in political and economic development which has ignored the cultural, social and political rights of native people and has denied them the opportunity to participate fully in the processes which are shaping their future.
The creation of the department of northern affairs and national resources in 1953 officially placed control of the north in the hands of bureaucrats, and this trend has continued through the devolution of the present Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The creation of the territorial council has done little to change this, as most major decisions are still made in Ottawa. Current government policy regarding the north seems vague and full of contradictions. At least, this is my interpretation after listening to the Speech from the Throne and a number of comments made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
1 would like for a few minutes to comment on the push for mining development as mentioned in the throne speech. In fact, that was all that was mentioned in the speech about the far north. Let me retrace our steps for a moment. The northern mineral advisory committee was formed under the auspices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of the old Liberal government. It consists of 15 members chosen exclusively from government and the mining industry.
Its mandate was to advise the minister in formulating policies and strategies for the development of the mining industry in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is, therefore, an instrument of the previous government and was to be used in the formation of Liberal policies. The present government has promised early action on the recommendations made by this committee in its recently released report. The Conservative government has therefore presumably adopted what would otherwise have been Liberal policy and has done so despite many inadequacies in the committee's recommendations, some of which I would like to point out.
This report ignores the broad implications of its mandate in favour of the narrow, vested interests of the mining industry. No discussions were held with members of any of the native organizations or any other special interest groups in the territories-and there are quite a few-and although participation of northern residents is given token consideration, the report states that, and 1 quote:
-its achievement must be coupled by an equally strong effort by industry to adapt the particular characteristics and strengths of northern people to the needs of industry.
I hesitate to say what the people up north would call that.
Furthermore, the report ignores the fact that a dispute over uranium mining in the Baker Lake area is now before the
The Address-Mr. Ittinuar
courts and that little information is available about the nature of industry-government negotiations concerning Cominco's proposed Arvik mine on Little Cornwallis Island. The uneasy conclusion is that policy is being formed by industry and government behind closed doors. Such approaches to development decision-making can only heighten suspicion and mistrust, and that is the process going on now.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain inconsistencies and inaccuracies which cast further doubt on the validity of this report as a basis for government policy. The report states, and I quote:
Mining can be a most effective vehicle for increased economic activity and opportunity for employment and training for all people now living in the north or wishing some day to settle there.
Unfortunately, the record of native employment at such mines as Pine Point, Cyprus Anvil and Nanisivik has been dismal. Also, mining in the territories has to date been an export-oriented activity and has generated little in the way of secondary economic activity. History, therefore, contradicts this report's claim that sustained, long-term benefits will accrue to northerners.
The report also recommends, and I quote:
Economic development of the north must proceed with full recognition of the legitimate interests of northern people and the protection of the environment.
Yet, in several places the report states that mineral rights should remain vested in the Crown regardless of future agreements with native people. This idea makes one wonder just what the committee considers to be legitimate interests.
While saying on the one hand that industry wishes to protect the environment, the report questions the continuing validity of the Thelon Game Sanctuary, a region which the uranium mining industry wishes to explore. The report also recommends that if economic development is to be prohibited on certain lands, the area of these lands should be kept to a minimum and that selection of lands take into account their potential mineral value. This seems to say that land set aside for environmental protection should be located where there are no minerals rather than where there are important wildlife populations or environmentally sensitive features to be protected.
If mining is to make a positive contribution to the long-term development of the north, I feel that it must be taken in its proper perspective as only one of several elements which can contribute to the benefit of northerners. It must not, for example, be allowed to interfere with management of renewable resources which are essential to the continuing survival of northern culture and economic well-being. Above all, the mining industry must not be permitted to supersede the legitimate rights and aspirations of the people of the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Ittinuar: In the Speech from the Throne reference was made to the diversity of Canada as a national asset, and yet the thrust of northern policy seems to offer the native people only one alternative, that of assimilation. The throne speech

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Ittinuar
made no reference to the Inuit or to the constitution, it made no reference to political development in the Northwest Territories, and in fact if recent developments in the Yukon are any indication, the present government is not really interested in involving native people in political change, except in a token way after the fact.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) promised to let Yukoners decide through a referendum the question of provincial status. However, last week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development took steps which bring the Yukon Territory government dangerously close in form to provincehood, and there was no referendum before that. I say "dangerously" for two reasons. First of all, the move was made without prior consultation with the Council of Yukon Indians whose outstanding claims are susceptible to the whims of politicians and political moods, and perhaps I should include myself in that circle. Secondly, with the framework of a provincial government already in place, the question of a referendum becomes academic. Residents of the Northwest Territories and Yukoners alike may, and do, desire responsible government, but we feel very strongly about being a part of the democratic planning process of such a government.
In the search for solutions to the question of political development in the north, the logical place to look is in the aspirations of the population itself. We believe this is the democratic way. The aspirations of the people in this case are embodied in the desire for a new province named Nunavut. This desire has been well thought out. It divides the Northwest Territories into manageable proportions, each of which has enough homogeneity to make public administration more efficient. The summary report of the advisory commission on the development of government in the Northwest Territories in 1966 recommended that Yellowknife be made the capital of the Northwest Territories. I wish to quote one of the reasons given. It reads as follows:
It would be an appropriate location for the present political unit of the Northwest Territories or for the western part of a divided territory.
The Government of Canada, in creating the constituency of Nunatsiaq, has already recognized the natural boundary separating the eastern and western halves. Nunatsiaq is a culturally and geographically distinct area north of the tree line.
I now call upon the Government of Canada to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the people of Nunavut to become equal participants in the Canadian confederation. These aspirations are not in the least radical. It was only 30 years ago that Newfoundland joined confederation. At a time when national unity is being tried and tested, the people of Nunavut wish to be welcomed by their fellow Canadians into the fold of confederation.
On principle, I should like to speak in Inuktitut and say-
[Editor's Note: At this point Mr. Ittinuar spoke in Inuktitut.]

What 1 have just said is that I have been welcomed in the most cordial manner by members of all parties, except perhaps the Social Credit members. I thank them and I hope we can come to understand each other.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to take this opportunity to extend to you personally my warmest greetings, as a friend and as one who can do an excellent job and assume his new responsibilities. 1 also want to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the entire cabinet for the trust they have put in me. It is a great honour for me and for my constituents that I should be a member of the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I hope to live up to the expectations and to serve the best interests of my country.
I also want to take the time to commend the Speaker of the House on his appointment to the office he has served with such excellence thus far and where he has shown his characteristic wisdom. I therefore want to wish him all the success he deserves and I might add that I truthfully would not want to be in his place, especially when he must give certain rulings. By the same token, I would not want to leave unmentioned the motion of the co-movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, two newcomers to this House who join us for this Thirty-first Parliament. That reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of my first years or first days in the House of Commons, some 12 years ago. I also want to congratulate all members on their reelection, in some cases, or their election, in other cases, especially the right hon. Prime Minister who, in less than three years, rose from private member to leader of his party to first citizen of Canada. It is a great honour for me and I think it should be felt by all Canadians.
Finally, I should like also to congratulate the new opposition leader (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the Leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada (Mr. Roy) and wish them too the best of luck. I should like to spend a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to thank especially the people of my constituency of Joliette for sending me for the fourth time as their elected representative in the House of Commons. I am aware that this is a great honour and I have every intention of living up to their expectations. 1 have always been faithful to them, Mr. Speaker, in spite of difficult circumstances. I have always held the mandate received from my constituents as something extremely precious, and I feel that their testimony has still more significance because the right hon. Prime Minister has now asked me to be part of his cabinet. Mr. Speaker, this is an honour I share with all my constituents.
I have been sitting in the House of Commons since 1968 and I have made it my duty to be sensitive to the needs of the electors in my riding. Despite the new responsibilities entrusted to me as Minister of Supply and Services, I shall certainly not neglect my own riding; I shall see to it that my
October 16, 1979

electors benefit from some economic fall-out. I represent a riding that is in need of a new impetus in the economic field, and as the representative of the riding of Joliette in the House of Commons, 1 intend to spare no effort in helping to set the economy of my area back on track, as well as that of the whole country, which is not incompatible with renewed economic activity in my own area.
My electors have been patient. Some will recognize that. They have waited almost 12 years to be represented in cabinet.
1 certainly have no intention of disappointing them on that score, Mr. Speaker; I shall participate more than ever in consultations and the implementation of programs designed to improve the quality of life. Mr, Speaker, I would also like to take a few minutes to explain briefly the responsibilities of my department. My department, I am sure, as well as most public organizations responsible for purchases have always endeavoured to obtain the best value at the best price in deals concluded on behalf of the government.
The federal government has long since recognized that its purchase policy could promote economic development in Canada. Several provinces have acted likewise, each in its own way. Current financial conditions require that we grant more importance to our purchases to stimulate the Canadian economy and 1 would like to deal briefly with this matter. The public organizations responsible for business play an important role in the economy. In recent years, for example, the Department of Supply and Services has purchased goods and services worth annually some $3 billion. It is a substantial amount which represents only 15 per cent of the $20 billion spent annually at all levels of government for the purchase of goods and services.
We must not underestimate the economic repercussions of these expenses. Of course, governments are becoming ever more conscious of the fact that they have to exert the economic influence they have as buyers of goods and services, but it is also obvious that in order to obtain maximum advantages for Canada as a whole and for every province, we have devised a more co-operative working scheme with a view to making our buyer status more widely known.
No government or department can permanently play a pioneering role in that field. Which brings us down to the fundamental question, namely how to achieve unanimity among governments to rationalize and integrate our activities as much as is necessary. We have to achieve that unanimity within the limits of our objectives of integrity and profitability. Moreover, my department's policy is to give preference to companies whose head office is in Canada provided that the competition is sufficiently strong to assure us we will get our money's worth when time comes to negotiate contracts. The effect of that policy is to give Canadian enterprises more than 80 per cent of the total value of the market the Department of Supply and Services represents. As for the rest of our purchases from foreign companies, which represent 20 per cent of
The Address-Mr. La Salle
all our purchases, they generally concern military equipment which is of great technical complexity and which is not produced in Canada. The federal government tries to pull out of these purchases beneficial repercussions on the Canadian economy.
That is done by subcontracting and through the investments of suppliers in Canada. With respect to regional purchases, the policy of my department requires that goods and services be bought in the region involved provided there is enough competition. Consequently about 30 per cent of the purchases of my department are made through regional offices located all over Canada. As to the remaining 70 per cent, my department tries to make sure that all qualified Canadian corporations are invited to tender. The federal policy requires that certain products, like textile products, clothing and ships, be purchased exclusively in Canada. In addition, the scientific and technical products acquisition policy as well as the policy dealing with ammunitions give preference to Canadian corporations.
My department has tried to promote the interest of small and medium businesses. On average, it has given some 71 per cent of the number and 40 per cent of the annual value of those deals, worth $585 million, to small businesses. This percentage compares favourably with the over-all contribution of small businesses to the Canadian economy which is estimated to be between 25 and 30 per cent of the gross national product. This brief outline of the accomplishments of my department shows that worth-while efforts have been made to help Canadian industry but I believe we can still do much more.
In this respect, 1 believe it would be appropriate to rely more heavily on certain initiatives to get the most for our money while at the same time seeking to increase our help to Canadian industry through closer co-operation between three heavily involved departments, namely the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and my department. 1 believe we could consider in future studies on ways to make ourselves certain products we have to buy abroad which would enable us, along with those two other departments, to attract those industries to those so-called soft areas where unemployment is high. As I see it, perhaps that would dispel the concern voiced by the premier of Quebec last night in Hull, since he aims at establishing equity of purchases proportionally to the population of the provinces. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to try to meet this objective with the co-operation of these two departments so that my province may finally be treated equally and so that the purchases may be made throughout the country with the same equity, with which all hon. members on the other side as well as my colleagues would certainly agree.

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. La Salle
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I shall take this opportunity to express my personal satisfaction at the fact that the Speech from the Throne refers to certain measures aimed at stimulating the Canadian economy.
In my capacity of a member of the cabinet, I insisted as early as the Jasper meeting that some emphasis be placed on economic revival, and I am pleased to see that my message was understood. The reinforcement of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the original program, it must be recognized, of tax credits for mortgage interests and property taxes, the development of a national tourist industry development strategy in cooperation with provinces, assistance for small and medium businessess, Mr. Speaker, these are all clear indications of the will of our government to take direct action to put the Canadian economy back on its feet. And 1 would not want to forget to mention the intention of the government to establish a national assistance program for the handicapped.
Our decision to hold a national conference on economic development with all our partners, that is business, unions, co-operatives and other groups in all the provinces, shows that we intend to consult those involved before deciding on any course of action. This conference, which is a sort of summit meeting of all economic development officers in Canada, reflects the new spirit of co-operation that the right hon. Prime Minister wants to instill in our country.
In this regard, I would like to underline, like the right hon. Prime Minister, that it is no longer a few members of the elite who decide on the direction to give the policies of Canada, but members of parliament elected democratically and representing all the provinces. This is a good illustration, Mr. Speaker, of true federalism which goes from the bottom up instead of what we have suffered for too long, a federalism shaped like an inverted pyramid which suffocates any private initiative. I am also happy to note the open mind with which we intend to conduct federal-provincial relations. This will be our trademark, Mr. Speaker, and not only until the Quebec referendum, but also afterwards.
Personally I have always spoken openly in favour of a renewed and decentralized form of federalism. It is not without regret that I have witnessed for the past ten years this battle waged by the commandos of the former minister in charge of federal-provincial relations and which has only resulted in hardening the positions taken by the provinces, Quebec in particular, toward the federal government. I therefore rejoice at the announcement made by the Prime Minister with regard to this matter wherein he urged all members of the House to adopt a more open minded stance, more directly geared to economic realities and our differences which should be better understood in order to better unite us. This spirit of co-operation pleases me and I for one certainly intend to put it into practice openly, Mr. Speaker. I would like to add right now that in my case this is not a sudden conversion to a new
style because it has been a point of view that I have held ever since I started representing my riding in this House.
However, I understand that the attitude suggested to us by the Prime Minister will not be easy for everyone. Nevertheless I think that the time has come to bury the hatchet. From now on, we shall see the start of a new era. It is the end of fruitless battles, the disappearance of scarecrows that were used to frighten everyone. It is also the end of propaganda. Everything has been said and it is now time for action.
Since May 22, the date of the election of our party, an easing of minds has replaced the stress maintained for too long and deliberately created by our opponents. In the last four months we have tried to emphasize the aspects which draw us closer to the provinces, particularly Quebec, rather than underlining points of divergence. I really believe that we shall have to develop the approach which consists of listening to the desires of other people.
Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed for too long a dialogue of the deaf between the federal government and my province in particular. I think we are going towards more openness. We live in a tremendously rich country with considerable wealth. It will be to our advantage to share all we have at a time when the economic situation invites us to think of our fellow citizens.
The government of which I have the privilege to be a member refused to choose national unity as its platform in the last election and I am happy it did. In fact, on this side of the House, we believe that there are many other priorities requiring immediate intervention and if the re-establishment of an economic climate is achieved, we should not neglect the importance of constitutional changes that would be much easier in a climate more favourable to discussions and negotiations with the provinces.
I have always considered that it would not be very advantageous to create a confrontation with partners which form the Canadian nation. But I still believe we have everything to gain by finding together, in a spontaneous research effort, better ways of living where all Canadians, French and English alike, will live in unison.
Mr. Speaker, our opponents too often demonstrated that a common ground will not be found by accusing others, especially not our Quebec partners. More flexibility, some open-mindedness, less arrogance and intolerance seem to be called for if we are to start on the road to reconciliation, especially on the eve of the forthcoming Quebec referendum to be held next spring.
I noticed that some hon. members opposite were outraged last week-they may still be today-that we put aside what I would call an instrument of confrontation and aggression, the referendum bill, which I fought vigorously last spring. Our party, our government also realized this was not the way to treat people in Quebec. We believe in the maturity of Quebeckers. We are confident that, with proposals and above all

October 16, 1979

with an attitude of concertation rather than confrontation, we will prove to all Quebeckers that their future and the numerous benefits offered by this country still lie within a constitutional framework, albeit much more flexible that anything we could invent until now. Therefore, when 1 listened to the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger), who earlier raised questions:
How come Ontario and British Columbia pay more for goods when they could get them cheaper in Quebec? How come our economy is almost at its lowest? How come this country is divided? I forgive him, Mr. Speaker, he is a new member. He may not have followed what his party did in the last ten years. How is it that a government made up of about 60 Quebeckers that has ruled for 16 years has put the country in a situation like this? How is it that they have been unable to provide Quebeckers with the message they were expecting?
How about the co-operation Quebeckers expected from them? The member should know that the number of people in Quebec dissatisfied with federalism as advocated by his party has increased 1 do not know how many times. They have failed and they should ask themselves how it is that our country is in such a poor economic state. How come his own party has let unemployment soar from 200,000 to 1,500,000 in less than ten years? That is the kind of questions the member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) should ask himself instead of interrupting those who have points to make like me today.
I suggest that this adaptability on our part and, as I said, our willingness to listen to our counterparts in the various provinces will greatly help us build the foundation of a rejuvenated federalism much more in line with the provinces' aspirations. 1 am not inventing anything, Mr. Speaker, simply watching what is going on in Canada. Over the past 12 years which 1 have spent sitting in the House as elected representative for the Joliette riding, I have witnessed a great many confrontations which could have been prevented, in my opinion, if only the previous administration had demonstrated greater understanding.
Need 1 remind my hon. colleagues, for instance, of the sales tax imbroglio when 1 was deeply ashamed to hear my Quebec colleagues fly in the face of the most evident aspirations and interests of the province of Quebec. These are the people who are now accusing us of selling out to the provinces. Yet, they are the very people who are responsible for Canadian unity being put to the test, because they enjoyed these confrontations with the provinces; now they are wondering what essentially we mean when we talk about a greater need for understanding and adaptability with the provinces.
This desire to allow the provinces to participate in the major national decisions, this deep desire on the part of the Prime Minister and all my cabinet colleagues to give the provinces the opportunity to discuss important decisions having direct
The Address-Mr. La Salle
implications on their own economy: here is the kind of federalism and the kind of administration we want to establish, Mr. Speaker. They charge that we are willing to sell out to the provinces and yet they are the ones who, after 16 years in power, have succeeded in tearing the country apart as is the case today, Mr. Speaker. I feel no sympathy for that kind of argument which they use too often.
Even the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), last week in Winnipeg together with a few Liberals, of course, are looking for a side track, a more secure way. 1 understand them because 1 have gone through that myself if it can make you feel better. I have experienced that but now they are going to go through it for a while, and 1 do not mind at all. Don't worry. Last weekend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton went to Winnipeg to say-he was taking the words out of my mouth-that the time has come to go toward a flexible federalism. Flexibility, adaptability, those are not their inventions. Of course, the reporter could not do better than say: The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton has taken up the statements of the present Prime Minister of Canada. I was happy to read that. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton after what he had to do, and he is probably not always at ease with his party, considering the recommendations he made, still understood, and we are aware of it and very pleased about it, that some flexibility is necessary. Do not forget that, boys. Flexibility is important; you have not understood anything for a long time. Mr. Speaker, the degree of frustration of thousands of Canadians, of Quebeckers in particular, is only equalled by the morbid tenaciousness and the spirit of persecution developed by our opponents with a high degree of refinement to try to find opportunities to multiply confrontations and altercations with my province in particular, which is also their province.
We do not intend to dig up the hatchet of the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, but rather, as 1 said earlier, to begin a sustained dialogue. Today we are harvesting the results of the storm created by the former government. We intend to head for brighter skies, Mr. Speaker, by being more open to the claims of Quebec and of the other provinces on this side of the House. In this instance also, patience and time can do more than-


Mr. Olivier:: -force and rage.


Roch La Salle: -than force and rage. The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) knows that. But I am surprised that he has not put it in practice more often.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say a few words about our concerns in another area-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: The
hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) on a point of order.

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. La Salle


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I regret to interrupt the minister and member for Joliette. I commend him for his speech but I would ask him to restrict his judgments. I would also ask him, when he judges another member of this House, to tell us where he is quoting from and where he draws his examples. I am quite prepared to put them in practice, so long as he tells us where he draws them from. Mr. Speaker, the results of the May 22 election prove unquestionably that Quebeckers rejected his party, as they always have.


Roch La Salle: I could certainly give the hon. member some examples, but 1 do not recall hearing him speak in the House and I cannot draw anything from his actions.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will not give the examples the hon. member requests because there are not enough-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. 1 request that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) carry on with his speech.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall be glad to. In another connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say two words about a daily concern, namely that of the development of agriculture in Canada and in Quebec in particular. Concern has been expressed because no specific mention of agriculture was made in the Speech from the Throne, but you may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture will be taken care of because that industry is of capital importance in our economic forecasts. Let no one worry about that. In this House I represent a riding whose economy, for the major part agricultural, depends on the resources of the soil. My riding of Joliette is an area whose production is largely agricultural in nature.
The situation of the dairy industry as a whole is also of major concern to us. It has experienced difficult years. My hon. friends across the way will remember that. We were not in power, Mr. Speaker, but 1 remember well what happened. I merely want to point out, for the guidance of my colleagues, that the Progressive Conservative government authorized, within a few weeks after May 22, an increase in the quotas of milk produced for export by some three million hundred weights, which represents sales of some $39 million for dairy producers. In the near future we also expect to increase by 1 to 2 per cent the quotas of milk and its by-products for consumption. The 20 cents previously withheld and recently reimbursed to the producers amounted to $26 million of which $13 million went to Quebec alone. To my mind, those figures prove our consideration for agriculture. Last month, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), had the opportunity of inaugurating a processing plant at Sainte-Claire; the project had been initiated by the previous government. I am very happy to say the plant opened recently.
That was part of an investment amounting to $2 million which also allowed the Department of Regional Economic
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)).
Expansion to spend $500,000 in the port of Quebec to store about 100,000 tons of products. That will bring into the economy of the greater Quebec City area investments amounting to $50 million. Another project of that type is in progress in Saint-Alexandre, near Riviere-du-Loup, which calls for an investment of around $7 million for the establishment of a processing plant.
These were, at least for the moment, some of our achievements, would it be only to show how interested we are in agriculture. I believe that my party, considering that its members are much more representative of the rural sector than people were inclined to think so far-and I personally have an important role to play, Mr. Speaker, because I have already received countless submissions from farmer groups with which, just like with my friends from the other side, I will be very pleased to co-operate in order to improve the conditions of farmers in my province^will be very pleased to support any legislation which would allow our country as a whole, whatever province it may affect directly, to benefit from subsidies or policies which would answer current needs, considering the present circumstances.
I think, Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. I wanted to take this opportunity to remind the House that we are looking forward to an excellent session, and that we also expect to achieve certain objectives, including two which are fundamental: restoring the economic climate in this country, and of course decreasing unemployment with, hopefully, some help insofar as one would want to be objective enough. I think our friends opposite will have to show a minimum of objectivity and co-operation to help the government realize those good intentions.
As for the unity of this country, we will spare nothing to realize the fundamental objective of all Canadians, that is to recognize their differences and then accept them and strive together to build a wonderful country which can assure equity, equality and justice for everyone.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, may I join in congratulating you upon your appointment to your high office. I share also in the tradition of this House in congratulating the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) upon their speeches. Perhaps I may be permitted a personal note of congratulations to the hon. member for Cardigan, since I suppose in a way he is my member of parliament, representing as he does a beautiful area where 1 am happy to say I still have the land on which my ancestors settled some 200 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a new constituency in metropolitan Toronto, Etobicoke North, a vital area where industry, particularly light and high-technology industry, leads our constituents to take a lively interest in economic policies pursued by the government, particularly those relating to industrial stategy. Etobicoke North is a constituency of hard-working, diligent citizens, many of whom have only recently become

October 16, 1979

Canadians, and all of whom are eager to see new opportunities created for Canadians to participate in the development of their own country, to realize their pride in Canadian initiative and capacities.
It is partly for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to say something this afternoon about trade and industrial development in Canada and about our assistance to developing countries.
The GATT agreements, completed last spring in Geneva, are the most recent stage in the long, difficult progress toward freer trade which began in the late 1930s. The recent so-called Tokyo Round was in several respects the most demanding in that prolonged process. The easier tariff reductions had been made as the result of the earlier negotiations; by 1973, when the Tokyo discussions began, the ingenuity of man had devised such a panoply of non-tariff barriers to replace traditional tariffs that growth in international trade was becoming increasingly trammelled.
Against this background, it is remarkable that so much was accomplished in Geneva. Much more, however, remains to be done here at home if Canada is to benefit fully from these marathon trade talks. Much of the task remaining concerns our relations with the United States. I take as my starting point certain implications for Canada from the GATT agreements, but Canadians should be under no illusion that we really have before us a much more fundamental question: our ability to order our future economic relations with the United States so that we can pursue our own unique social and cultural needs-so that, in short, we can give greater expression to our Canadian values, practices and traditions.
Canada and the United States are now committed to virtual free trade at the end of eight years, in the broader context of global reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers. This is a development which, at least in theory, is to be welcomed.Freer access to world markets, and freer access to one of the largest and most prosperous of such markets, the United States of America, should help Canadian industry to rid itself of that persistent deterrent to greater productivity and international competitiveness: the hitherto limited size of the market for Canadian products.
The question of the actual costs and benefits of freer trade is a complex one, Mr. Speaker, but it is now one which requires prompt attention. In the past, the discussion has been a somewhat leisurely one; with the conclusion of the GATT agreements, it becomes an urgent one. If my advocacy of early action appears to have any partisan overtone, I should like to draw the government's attention to a recent plea from Mr. Robert Stanfield. In April he stated:
In view of the importance of economies of scale, can we continue to thrive without a wider area of free trade with the United States? On the other hand, can we preserve sufficient independence if we do have a wider area of free trade with the United States? The question of entering the European Common Market was a difficult one for the United Kingdom, but no one country dominates the Common Market as the United States would dominate any partial or total common market between Canada and the United States.
The Address-Mr. MacLaren
Mr. Stanfield went on to say:
These questions are crucially important to Canada and to Canadian politicians ... However, there has been little political debate yet about such a move ... It will be interesting to see whether Canadians try to halt further economic integration with the U.S. and accept the resulting economic difficulties, or on the other hand try to secure increased access to the U.S. market and to build in the necessary safeguards. The debate must soon begin in earnest, and at the highest level of Canadian politics.
1 have noted some theoretical benefits of free trade. Reality is, unfortunately, somewhat different from economic theory. Canada is unique among non-communist nations in that the country to which 70 per cent of our trade, including 82 per cent of our manufactured exports, is directed, is the same country that controls a majority of our manufacturing sector and significant segments of our resources and related industries. The uniqueness of this Canadian situation is underlined if one recalls that, in the post-war European experience of free trade, there has been, as one observer has noted, "the union of more equally sized industrial economies and/or ones whose industry is not dominated economically by the branches of one neighbour."
Today United States corporations dominate manufacturing in Canada despite tariff walls. Tomorrow we shall have virtually no tariff walls or non-tariff barriers with the U.S.A.
The extent of foreign investment in Canada, mainly from the United States, is familiar. In any assessment of the net benefits and debits of this investment, it must be recognized that this has brought in its train a degree of foreign indebtedness again unique among industrialized nations. During recent decades there has been an increasingly large outflow of royalties and dividends and a parallel perceived need to keep Canadian interest rates above those in the U.S.A., with all the implications that this has for our own fiscal policy.
Second, given the fact that the United States is both our major trading partner and controls significant sectors of our economy, much of what is described as "trade" between our two countries is, in fact, intra-company movements of components or finished products within a single U.S. corporation, not deals at arm's length and not necessarily governed by market forces.
Third, with regard to exports, while some subsidiaries in Canada have received "global mandates" for their products, others are either assigned restricted export territories or excluded altogether from exporting. As an additional method of achieving greater profitability for the parent corporation, limitations are also in many cases placed on research and development, product development, or manufacturing diversification.
I was interested to note that, in a recent speech, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) deplored, as he should, the lack of export freedom of some subsidiaries in Canada. I regretted however, that he was silent about what should be done. A report recently made to his colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Grafftey), by the ad hoc advisory committee on research and develop-
254

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. MacLaren
merit sets out a promising review process with subsidiaries restricted in their export freedom. 1 recommend that the Minister for State for International Trade read that report. There will, I hope, be opportunities to pursue this point at a later stage.
Against this background, it would be idle, in light of the recent GATT agreements, to regard tariff or non-tariff barriers as being effective tools in any long-term industrial strategy for Canada. To achieve our dual goals of greater industrial development and Canadian control, we must look elsewhere. In selecting our tools, first let us attempt to visualize what the principal adverse effects of free trade with the United States may be.
As the possibilities for increased profits resulting from free trade are fully recognized by U.S. corporations, presumably they will review which manufacturing subsidiaries in Canada might be profitably shut down and moved to a U.S. factory, in a continental rationalization to achieve greater productivity, including economies of scale. The size of U.S. investment in Canada would be no blanket deterrent to such a trend, although transport and other costs might be in some cases. The current migration of certain U.S. manufacturing activities from New England to the lower cost southern states readily suggets the mobility of such investment.
Further, as both Canada and the United States increasingly feel the impact of higher energy costs and especially the competition of low-cost manufactures from the Third World, bringing heavy pressure on labour-intensive manufacturing, presumably the first jobs to be preserved by U.S. corporations would be at home rather than in Canada, whenever such a choice had to be made. Finally, even if a branch plant is left in Canada, it would become fully integrated into a continental operation, reducing the need for senior management talent in Canada.
While this migration was occurring, Canadian firms presumably would concurrently attempt to take advantage of free entry into the U.S. market and overseas. Although the U.S. reaction to free trade which I have described is likely to be successful for the corporations involved, since it would accord with the simple laws of the marketplace, it is not at all as certain that Canadian initiatives to benefit from free trade will be equally successful. Indeed, multinational corporations are, by their very nature, more likely to have the resources and flexibility required to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by free trade. It would, for example, be a reasonable, if broad, assumption that, unless adjustment assistance, including assistance in meeting capital costs in reorganization, were provided to small Canadian firms, they will be decidedly less likely to make the transition to free trade than a major U.S. corporation already familiar with both the U.S. and Canadian markets.
Given the fact that significant sectors of the Canadian economy are dominated by U.S. corporations, the Canadian government will be the only entity large enough to take a lead in attempting to select industrial sectors capable of competing in international markets, especially in the United States.

Although governments, with the possible exception of the Japanese, do not seem to be very good at foreseeing the industrial future or predicting the course of technological change, and although it would be an uphill struggle against dominant U.S. corporations, the Canadian government should attempt to foster the emergence of viable Canadian players in the U.S. economy and beyond.
The necessary industrial development policy to achieve this will be found in several respects synonymous with a policy promoting investment by Canadians in Canadian companies or the acquisition of foreign-controlled subsidiaries.
The creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency resulted from the growing realization on the part of the federal government of the day that ad hoc measures to deal with foreign investment were inadequate and that more was necessary to meet public concern over the disadvantages from the growing foreign investment in Canada.
It may be that FIRA has increased the benefits to Canada of such investment, but the fact remains that through both reinvestment and acquisition foreign control has continued to grow. I for one regret that the governments of Canada since the Second World War have found themselves incapable of doing more to ensure benefits to Canadians from foreign investment and to promote investment by Canadians in Canada.
The previous government did put into place several policies aimed mainly at promoting Canadian entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized businesses, a sector not so dominated by foreign corporations. These policies have contributed in varying degrees to the recent growth in new Canadian businesses, the more rapid growth of existing ones and the acquisition of foreign-controlled firms. They also represent the degree to which both the federal and provincial governments have already intervened in substantial ways to assist the private sector in dealing with structural problems, particularly in the manufacturing sector.
However, an overly interventionist approach on the part of government may well lead to greater inefficiencies and have little real effect on productivity. There is a vast difference between policies such as free trade, both internal and external, a more effective competition policy, particularly on mergers and monopolies and tax incentives, on the one hand, and government procurement policy, enforced mergers, and protection against imports of technology on the other.
The government should define a role for itself that encourages, without interfering unduly in the private sector; that promotes co-ordination between levels of government and among industries; that builds a positive relationship with business and labour and supports a nationally based industrial strategy emphasizing employment opportunities and Canadian ownership.
For some years now, the phrase "industrial strategy" has been much in vogue. At its most simplistic, the strategy has been put in military terms: a grand plan which, if once devised and followed consistently, would surely lead to victory. In
October 16, 1979

these terms, the search for an industrial strategy has been as barren as the search for the Holy Grail.
There cannot, in fact, be such a thing as a single, grand industrial strategy. Residual tariff protection may, for example, remain important for some sectors and the very last thing that other sectors require. Recognition of the fact that for Canada there cannot be a single strategy but rather a number of co-ordinated sector strategies led the previous government to establish the Board of Economic Development. It in turn worked with labour, business and the provincial governments to begin the elaboration of 21 sector strategies.
We must continue to develop more specific sector policies and instruments. We must begin to categorize our industrial activity according to the potential that it offers this country in the immediate and longer term. Those industries and sectors which have high potential for producing internationally competitive goods should receive priority in industrial incentives.
Other sectors of the Canadian economy are in need of adjustment assistance to meet the challenge of increasing imports, particularly from the Third World. Any sector strategies worthy of the name will necessarily raise questions of investment priorities of both Canadian and foreign-controlled corporations in Canada and the incentives of both the federal and provincial governments to encourage them in certain agreed directions. The provinces have, for example, significant powers regarding mergers and acquisitions; their full participation will be essential.
Within this framework of a co-ordinated industrial sector strategy, the role of FIRA would be enhanced. It could then realize its potential as a tool of industrial strategy. If the federal government, in consultation with other major players in the economy, were able to develop genuine, as opposed to self-serving, industrial strategies for major sectors, a foreign takeover or expansion could be judged by FIRA on the criteria of its compatability with designated internationally competitive sectors, and industries within those sectors. 1 am pleased that in a special committee of this House there will be opportunity to develop additional thinking about foreign investment, including FIRA. 1 am sure that the committee will be ably chaired by the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jupp).
I have said that additional measures are required to promote Canadian ownership, an essential development if we are to achieve that degree of economic independence necessary to enable us to pursue our own fiscal needs and to reduce the unacceptably high outflow of dividends, royalties and other invisibles which so bedevils our attempts at responsible economic management. There will, I understand, be occasion during the budget debate and when the GATT agreements are placed before this House to advance proposals in detail. Accordingly, I shall merely touch upon a few today.
Although tax measures can sometimes be rightly attacked as socially inequitable, they can, if implemented wisely, be an effective means of encouraging Canadians to invest in Canadi-
The Address-Mr. MacLaren
an equities. Tax shelter provisions have directed considerable amounts of additional investment into specific areas. There appears to be no reason why this tool should not be applied, as appropriate, to Canadian-controlled ventures in other sectors.
The establishment of business credit insurance companies, as proposed by the Board of Economic Development, should help to open additional major pools of capital, including pension funds.
With regard to the vital area of research and development, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has rightly urged tax incentives to make such investment more attractive in comparison with other investment opportunities. Share ownership by employees and additional activities for the Canada Development Corporation offer further opportunities to promote Canadian ownership and to assist Canadian companies in equipping themselves for the formidable challenges facing Canada as we enter a world of freer trade.
These are but a few instances where progress can be made in encouraging Canadian investment in Canada. There will be occasion to develop this thinking further. But if Canadian exports and ownership of our own industry are to be successfully extended, with all the attendant benefits for Canadians, three fundamental steps must be taken without delay. First, the establishment of a consultative forum involving business, labour and federal and provincial governments is long overdue. Second, federal efforts must be intensified to reduce regional preoccupations and to promote a freer internal market in Canada. Third, agreement must be reached soon with the United States on the terms of mutually beneficial government purchasing and on limiting the use of countervailing duties.
As Canada adjusts to free trade with the United States over the next eight years, the implementation of a comprehensive industrial strategy should help to put us in a position to compete more effectively in the U.S. market, as well as with U.S. imports at home, and to encourage Canadian ownership. In this evolving trade situation, there are both new opportunities and new challenges for Canadians. But we should also recognize that there are limitations arising from historical trends and certain geographic factors which will determine the scope and nature of those opportunities and challenges.
So it is, Mr. Speaker, in the yet broader area of Canada's external relations of which trade relations are such an important part. It was both a surprise and a cause of regret that while the throne speech raised several issues with a foreign affairs dimension-for example, oil pricing-there is not one word about Canada's foreign policy in either the throne speech or in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Clark) subsequent speech in this debate. Not a word about our relations with the United States, NATO, the United Nations, the commonwealth and la Francophonie, peacekeeping, disarmament, development assistance. Not one word, yet paradoxically during the many months which passed between the calling of the election and the calling of Parliament, it was foreign affairs which absorbed much of the time of the Prime Minister. The Tokyo economic summit, the Commonwealth conference in Zambia and the profound silliness of souring our hitherto good and growing

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. MacLaren
relations with the Moslem world were issues to which the new government devoted much of its first months in office. And yet in the throne speech, not one word about foreign policy.
After more than four months Canadians have little more information on the approach of the new government toward our foreign relations than the two recent speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald), one at the United Nations and the second in Toronto. Additional clues, albeit vague and contradictory, may be gleaned from the speeches of other ministers.
Given the confusing character of these various statements, there is ample opportunity to speculate about how the government intends to contribute to international peace, disarmament and prosperity. Time, however, is limited, so 1 shall restrict myself to the questions of development assistance and, by implication, our relations with the Third World.
Since coming to office, the minister has stated that government policy is to concentrate Canadian aid on those countries approaching what several decades ago became known as economic "take-off", or self-sustaining growth. What is one to make of this curious statement? For example, if one does oneself what one would have others do, who then would remain to assist the poorest of the poor countries? To take another instance, is one to assume that Canada in a search for "takeoff' countries will now direct its aid to the OPEC countries, countries which are achieving capital inflows adequate, if wisely employed, to ensure "take-off'?
If it is now the minister's intention to attempt to accelerate their "take-off' process by directing our aid toward the OPEC countries, she may be disappointed in her ambitions. Many of these countries are the same which have been alienated by the government's gratuitous and hapless intrusion into the long-vexed question of Jerusalem. The minister must accordingly look to other regions for those more affluent developing countries where Canada is to concentrate its aid, perhaps Latin America. Yet the minister's recently stated misgivings about human rights in Argentina and the consequent deplorable failure to develop our trade relations there would seem to exclude Argentina. Many of the other Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Venezuela, are rich in resources; can she really have them in mind? On the other hand, few countries of Africa have yet achieved the circumstances attending economic "take-off', so presumably they do not qualify. In any case, Africa is excluded, since the minister stated in Toronto that Africa is no longer an area of commitment for Canada. The fact is that southern Africa, especially Namibia, represents one of the most inflammable areas of the world today, but the minister asked in her Toronto speech, who cares?
One more example: Pakistan, a country singled out for having said some things which, in the minister's view, were unfriendly. Now our assistance to Pakistan is brought into question. Here indeed is a new doctrine for Canadian aid: "You will receive aid only if you agree with us, with our policies, even if Canadians themselves consider them to be singularly wrong-headed".

I have spent a few minutes on this review of recent bizarre statements on development assistance by the minister because their cumulative effect has been to spread confusion. Our links with many developing countries have their roots in shared history. The countries of formerly British Asia and Africa are tied to us through a common link with Britain, which has become an enduring connection through the institutions of the commonwealth. Our relations with French-speaking Africa are made closer by our shared membership in la Francophonie. These are not ties to be dismissed lightly, as they have been by the minister.
We maintain these connections with the Third World for reasons that have as much to do with international stability and security as with international charity. We cannot therefore dismiss countries because they are not about to "take off' economically. While many of the poorest countries are not yet in a position to offer commercial opportunities to Canadians, our assistance is not therefore wasted. In our volatile world, links between developed and developing countries play a stabilizing role. The intense north-south debate of the past few years should at least have taught us that developing countries are more articulate and more united than ever before, and that their participation as members on a more even footing in the international economic system is essential if we are to be able to preserve a mutually advantageous equilibrium.
We cannot afford at this point in north-south relations to be parsimonious and unimaginative. Even the poorest developing countries have an equal voice at international gatherings. And their comparatively more wealthy allies, countries such as Mexico, Nigeria and Indonesia, have been supporting their demands. Can it really be to Canada's benefit, 1 ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to cut off the ties which have been laboriously built up over time in the hope of obtaining some undefined and possibly unrealizable benefits for Canadian exporters?
We must continue to act upon the principles that underlie our involvement in peace keeping and development assistance around the world. Canada's contributions to world peace and more harmonious relations between north and south may be quantitatively small, but they continue to have an impact as evidence of our willingness as a prosperous nation to contribute to the advancement of others. We must not reduce foreign policy to a daily or monthly balance sheet. Our contributions, whether in the form of peace keeping troops or development projects, do not necessarily result in immediately tangible rewards. Yet we are undoubtedly contributing to security and economic growth on a global scale.
Let us have done with cant and compounded contradictions. Let us again, drawing upon our Judaeo-Christian traditions, drawing upon the skills and knowledge of our commonwealth and Francophone background, continue the task which all the governments of post-war Canada have set themselves. Let us continue to demonstrate the imagination and perseverance
October 16, 1979

which has marked Canada's approach to external aid throughout the past decades.


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege to be present in this House today. I am proud to be the member for Scarborough Centre. I am here with humility, remembering that my presence in this chamber is the end result of the support of many good people in Scarborough Centre whose judgment it was that I should be their voice in Parliament. It is my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to work hard for them six full days of each and every week. I do so with great joy. On the seventh day, I rest and recharge my batteries to renew myself mentally, physically and spiritually. Then, too, the seventh day I spend with my family, with our three boys of whom we are very proud, and with my husband.
With your permission, sir, 1 will pay tribute to my husband. It was he, when I was asked to consider declaring as a candidate for nomination, who acknowledged that the time was right for me, on behalf of our family, to offer our community of Scarborough Centre the ultimate service one can give: to serve as a member of Parliament. It was he who added his strength to mine during the extended and indefinite pre-writ period. It was he, with his superb sense of humour, who kept me and those around me from losing a sense of perspective during the election campaign. And now, Mr. Speaker, it is he who willingly fulfils the role of parliamentary spouse concurrently with that of husband.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Rose Stratas: Tribute, too, should be paid to you, Mr. Speaker. Congratulations have been extended to you by other members here. I add mine, combined with tribute, because it is fitting to do so to one who has displayed such reason, moderation and wisdom while exercising his duties. Congratulations are also due to the Clerk of the House. He comes from Saskatchewan, the province of my birth, so I feel a particular warmth as I extend best wishes to him and to his colleagues at the outset of the Thirty-first Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in this august chamber eager to participate in this session of Parliament, clothed in the innocence of a neophyte. I aspired to come here for many reasons, the main motive being to represent the people of Scarborough Centre. During the campaign 1 was asked what class of people reside in my constituency. My reply was: "The salt of the earth class." We are ordinary folk, Mr. Speaker, the kind of folk who built this great land. We live in town houses, bungalows, apartments; we have churches and schools; we are young, middle aged and elderly; we are small business and light industry; we are right in the centre of Scarborough. We are the hub of Scarborough. I was eager to represent these people because I could see at the time that the administration-now the former administration-was intent on eliminating the middle class, eradicating it from Canada. My concern was acute because a thriving middle class is one of the main elements of democracy.
The Address-Mrs. Stratas
And 1 sought to come to this august chamber, Mr. Speaker, because in my former life-my pre-political life-1 had known the frustration of being mute. So I sought to come here to speak for those who were mute, to speak for the poor, to speak for the young, to speak for those who wish me to speak for them, to speak for the ordinary folks. The Master Maker exercised His creative genius best when he made us, the ordinary folks. That is why he made so many of us.
He made us all so different, yet the more we are different the more we are alike. We have the same pain, fear, joy and hope. We have the capacity, when necessity demands it, to change from ordinary folk and become extraordinary folk, to rise to a challenge and overcome adversity. Above all, we have the same innocence, and it is this innocence which makes us shy away from something we know little about.
Thus, I was delighted to hear in the Speech from the Throne which His Excellency delivered last week that freedom of information was the first of what 1 call pillars of progress to be contained in the speech. Citizens and Parliament can control government if information is public, and citizens can come to know government. For our own sakes we must know government, and then and only then will the erosion of democracy be curtailed.
I come here as an idealist. Someone once defined an idealist as a person who knows that a rose is more beautiful than a cabbage and therefore believes that a rose will make better soup. I come here, as I said, as an idealist. I believe that the ideal is possible, if one works hard enough for it, but I have made soup. I know that cabbage makes better soup, so it is the ideal that I will strive to achieve here as a member of Parliament, ever mindful of the fact that it is soup which we need in Canada, cabbage soup. Ordinary folks' soup is what we need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Rose Stratas: With the last government it must have been very frustrating to cope with the publicly enunciated commitment to wrestle inflation to the ground while living with an administration which followed another policy altogether. That policy was to govern by headline, to govern on an ad hoc basis and to remember political expediency above all else. However, 1 can assure hon. members of the opposition who have experienced the frustrations and the dilemma of toeing the party line while trying to maintain their integrity, and their credibility too, that with this government those frustrations do not exist; nor will they exist because in this government ad hockery is non-existent. Headline hunting is not the main motive of this government. Integrity exists in government now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Rose Stratas: This is very obvious in the Speech from the Throne. It is a first things first speech. In it is demonstrated that long-term planning rather than short-term political expediency exists in government now.

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mrs. Stratas
As I said earlier, 1 am a novice member of this House, so I consider it fitting that I come here during the International Year of the Child. I am a child in some respects compared with some of the more senior and very respected members of the House, but 1 am not afraid to admit that I have much to learn, and I believe that sometimes innocence is an advantage. This is a new government; our slate is clean.
It is a particular honour, too, to take my seat in the House of Commons in the month of the fiftieth anniversary of the "persons" case. As I look around the House, it occurs to me to point out that at the present rate of increase the House will be half filled with women in 842 years! It is like a marriage; the first 100 years are the hardest. One consideration of a novice member in this House is the fear of losing credibility through, 1 am told, ill-advised or ill-considered espousement of a cause.
When the novice is like me, a woman, and the cause is women's rights, the fear is more than justifiable. No parliamentarian can afford to be branded, not if he expects to make any serious contribution to government. To speak too forcibly too soon for women's rights would be to brand myself as a feminist, which is pretty low, so to speak, generally on the credibility scale.
However, 50 years after the BNA Act came into effect women were not constitutionally recognized as persons. Women were not "persons in matters of rights and privileges but only persons in matters of pains and penalties". Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it would be dangerous to assume that women could be considered persons in terms of the BNA Act wording that the government summon "qualified persons" to the Senate. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Britain, at that time Canada's final court of appeal, overruled the Supreme Court decision, and I would like to quote exactly the words of the Privy Council decision.
The exclusion of women from all public office is a relic of days more barbarous than ours, and to those who ask why the word "person" should include females, the obvious answer is, "Why not?"
Fifty years ago I would not have been considered a person. Today I am a member of this very worthy House. Nevertheless, the fact remains that women form only 2.8 per cent of the complement of this House, although they form more than 50 per cent of the population of Canada. The fact remains, according to the national council on welfare report tabled just last week, that 16 per cent of adult Canadian women live in poverty; that is, one out of every six women manages to survive somehow on incomes below the Statistics Canada poverty line. The fact remains that in Canada two out of every three elderly widows have incomes below the poverty line, and less than one widow in four can expect to receive any regular benefits from her deceased husband's employer. The fact remains that 68 per cent of single mothers under age 35 have incomes below the poverty line. "I do not mind refusing them potato chips and cookies," one spouseless mother said, "but it really bothers me when I have to say no when they ask for a banana".
A traditional comment about women members of Parliament is that they tend to concentrate only on "soft" issues like health, social welfare, culture and the family, but it is my

belief that these so-called soft issues are the very fabric of society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Rose Stratas: If the fabric is rotten or of inferior quality, then all the seams in the world will not hold it together. The facts prove, moreover, that women have shown interest, expertise and leadership in widely diverse areas of legislation and jurisdiction in the House. Private members' bills introduced by women have dealt with such matters as amendments to the Criminal Code, modernization of the Copyright Act, the creation of a department of consumer affairs and the regulation of election expenses as well as bills affecting women and maternity benefits, abortion and equal pay.
Much remains to be done in terms of legislation concerning women's rights. It must be remembered too that legislation must be implemented to be effective. Ambiguous or unenfor-cible legislation makes a mockery of law. This must be avoided above all else. What must also be avoided is the impatient shelving of women-related legislation on the ground that more urgent and weighty measures must be dealt with. What is more urgent than the lives of 50 per cent of the population of Canada? I do not advocate hasty, radical action, nor do I want to see legislation which is rhetorically admirable but practically unenforcible.
Long-term ramifications and ricochet reactions must be considered. It is no good to deal with today and to let tomorrow take care of itself. History has shown that tomorrow is notoriously unable to look after itself, partly because of shortsighted legislation which may have served the day but encumbered the future.
The Canadian suffragette movement was quite free from violence, believe it or not, compared with the United States and Great Britain. Canada witnessed a very quiet and orderly struggle for female suffrage, with many colourful, intelligent women lending their talent and their wit to a potentially explosive cause.
As I look around this House, I am reminded of Nellie McClung's mock parliament in Winnipeg in 1924. As "Premier McClung" she denied men the vote by turning the anti-suffragist arguments around. She concluded with: "Men's place is on the farm!"
It is in our best interests as parliamentarians, as Canadians and as human beings, to lead the way with just, equitable legislation on women-related concerns. Let us not wait for model legislation from other countries. The research has been done, the rhetoric spoken and the groundwork completed. This House has the authority, the talent and the power to be a world leader in this field.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has assigned to me the duties of Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. I am deeply honoured and

October 16, 1979
I very much look forward to working with the minister. 1 reiterate words which he once spoke:
We have a burgeoning potential for cultural expression. Yet Canadian culture today is a state subsidized activity on the margins of economic enterprise. Canadian culture tomorrow could be the growth industry of the decade. It goes to the root of our philosophy as a party that workable incentives are a more efficient and acceptable alternative than state compulsion.
I should like to quote as well the words of Mr. Raymond Moriyama, the architect and planner who designed the beautiful Scarborough civic centre of which we in Scarborough are so proud. Mr. Moriyama said:
A man needs dignity to remain human, but personal dignity cannot sustain a man unless there is social recognition of this need. Freedom is accepting responsibility for one's action and caring for others, caring about questions and caring about answers. Life is full of contradictions, some intolerable, some to be transcended. One must be passionately disinterested to find a balance, committed yet neutral. Everything is important and nothing is important. There is a God-like potential in every one of us, and every child born is a new opportunity for this potential to emerge.
I believe in Canada. I believe in the people of Canada. I believe in the potential of this country, its natural potential, its cultural potential, its people potential. I believe in the traditions of our past as exemplified by generations of Canadians from many backgrounds and origins. I believe in our courage as a nation, and I believe in the integrity of this House. It is a privilege for me to join my good colleagues as the member for Scarborough Centre in this Thirty-first Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier), it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-Industry-Opportunity to sell Canadair to private sector; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Bird's Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Environmental affairs-Government policy respecting disposal and transportation of chemical wastes; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)-Environmental affairs-Protection against oil spills in west coast waters.
The Address-Mr. Chenier


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Being myself among the newly elected, as indicated by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), I want to assure you of my unreserved loyalty and complete dedication to the task which, as a member of parliament, was assigned to me by the electors of the constituency of Timmins-Chapleau. I should like to congratulate you for your appointment as Speaker of the House, with the heavy responsibilities you fulfil with such dignity and wisdom.

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Timmins-Chapleau was formed just prior to the last election and is now made up of parts of the former ridings of Timmins, Cochrane and Nickel Belt. It is a large riding, 450 kilometers by 320 kilometers. The eastern boundary is at the town of Iroquois Falls, a very progressive pulp and paper producing community, which can and will only survive if the present government continues the strategies developed by the former to encourage and ensure reforestation access to resources and incentives for modernization.
To the west of Iroquois Falls is Timmins, the regional centre of the riding and one of the important cities in northern Ontario. A federal presence must be maintained and expanded in that city, through Air Canada, through improved and additional federal services, and with the help of federal corporations such as CDC, FBDB and DREE.
Continuing west on a lonely stretch of highway one encounters a village called Foleyet which owes its existence to the CNR and to the woods industry. Care must be taken to maintain basic services in such small settlements as Foleyet and Gogama. Because of the curtailment of daily passenger train services, they face a very serious reduction in postal services.
Sixty miles further, on route 101, is Chapleau, a lumber town on the CPR mainline. Here reside the typical northeners who, against almost insurmountable odds, have carved a permanent if difficult existence, never giving up, always striving for improvement while maintaining the perpetual optimism so typical of northern people.
Near beautiful Wawa which lies in close proximity to Lake Superior is a small hamlet named Hawk Junction which, through the lack of sensitivity of the present government, has lost the opportunity through a Canada Works program to move and erect a building which would have served as a recreation centre and fire hall.

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Chenier
Finally, one arrives in Wawa, a mining and tourist centre where hospitality and friendliness permeate the atmosphere. This small town is nestled in the pre-Cambrian shield. At times it has had more difficulty to identify with the rest of Canada than some of the communities of the Territories. The former government established national communication links with Wawa. It now remains our task to permit it to identify with its region through special arrangements between the CBC and local television stations.
[ Translation]
When you go from Timmins to Sudbury you can visit all kinds of small communities such as Gogama, Cartier, Bis-cotasing, Kormac and Westree. Those people are independent. They do not ask much of the federal government. However, it would seem that on behalf of budgetary restrictions, those Canadians, those humble and simple people, will become the forgotten people of our nation.
[ English)
The riding of Timmins-Chapleau has five reservations. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has indicated that measures would be presented to the House for the improvement of the plight of our native population. I welcome this promise and 1 hope that, as other promises, it will not disintegrate in confusion and retraction.
[ Translation]
Northern Ontario is my country. 1 live there and I have devoted most of my career to it. I know its people: they are optimistic, energetic, independent and proud. Whether of Canadian, European or Asiatic descent, we live there in harmony and unity. The northern Ontario inhabitants of the Timmins-Chapleau riding are a model for all the people of Canada of the flourishing of unity within diversity, of a unity based on respect and mutal acceptance.
I suggest that the parliamentary committee on multicultur-alism which will be set up soon should come and visit us in order to observe the results of such an attitude. Maybe we can pass on our spirit of unity to the rest of Canada.
This government is less than six months old and the citizens of Timmins-Chapleau have strong misgivings and mistrust in their first evaluation of the new administration, and for very specific reasons. The government had been in power less than two months when it decided to cut off our communities from job-creation funds which had previously been available through the Canada Works program.
This brings to mind a couple of issues the Tories advocated during the federal election and repeated in the Speech from the Throne. On the one hand the Speech from the Throne indicated that the government will introduce "measures to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector in our society", while on the other hand it arbitrarily cut off voluntary groups in all of Ontario from their noble task of creating, sponsoring

and selecting community-spirited job-creation projects by shelving Canada Works in many parts of Canada.
Canada Works was an important tool to deal with seasonal unemployment especially in areas with little economic stability. It is my hope that the new government will understand that many smaller communities will constantly live or die at the mercy of the economic indicators of more prosperous and larger communities. For example, it is not fair for the government to decide that such areas as Gogama, Cartier and Foleyet will not benefit from Canada Works, because Timmins, Iroquois Falls, Chapleau and Wawa industries are operating at full capacity in the mining, forestry and pulp and paper sectors. In everyday life Canada Works was the only tangible link the people of these smaller communities in Timmins-Chapleau riding had with the federal government. The program provided useful jobs while at the same time offering essential services which otherwise would not have been possible.
Permanent jobs were created in some areas. Now these communities have reverted to the style of the early sixties where these people will contribute to the federal coffers via taxes but will get little in return. It is my hope that the right hon. Prime Minister will rethink his perception, which is certainly not shared by myself. If the new government pursues this vision of Canada, of course, our country will be a community of communities, but communities strongly divided between large, prosperous one like Timmins, Wawa, Chapleau and Iroquois Falls, and small abandoned ones like Foleyet, Gogama and Cartier, communities which will have been left to fend for themselves by a central government that will have given away most of its power to keep the communities together. We have yet to see which better programs the Prime Minister intends to introduce in order to encourage young Canadians to serve their communities.
[ Translation]
Hardly three months after the new government came into power, my riding took another beating, since the new administration decided to scrap the decentralization program of the previous Liberal government and thus eliminate 109 jobs intended for Timmins. In my view, it makes good sense to break up the centralized machinery of government and make it more accessible to Canadians, and I believe this Liberal decision justified every dollar earmarked for this purpose.
The city of Timmins and the private sector in the region had been waiting since 1976 and there had been discussions regarding the integration of these jobs into the downtown renewal program. The people who had welcomed this move as a unique opportunity to diversify employment and as a means to ensure greater economic stability in a region which is closely related to the mining industry, cannot understand why the government has persisted in this decision. It seems to me that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) is obsessed with the idea of eliminating jobs and cutting expenditures inconsiderately and regardless of the impact on the municipali-

October 16, 1979
ties and those concerned. We can almost foresee the day when government spending will be so strictly controlled by the minister responsible for the Treasury Board that the Canadian people will laugh at the Progressive Conservatives' good intentions of placing greater reliance, to quote their very words, on individual initiative to generate growth and jobs for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, 1 remind the new government that the decision to eliminate 109 jobs in Timmins was taken without consulting the parties concerned. Is that the kind of consultation and co-operation to be expected of the new government, as convincingly stated in the Speech from the Throne?

As if the Timmins-Chapleau riding has not suffered enough already since this government fumbled into office, judging from the Prime Minister's statements prior to his ascendancy to the highest office in the land 1 suspect that northern Ontario is in for further hardship at the hands of this government. I refer to the former opposition leader's remarks concerning air transportation in Canada and the role of Air Canada, our national airline and unifying national symbol.
As the former opposition leader may be aware, Timmins is a community of major importance in Canada with a population of almost 50,000. It is serviced by Air Canada, a service which is essential to the citizens in northern Ontario. Air Canada provides three flights a day both to and from Toronto, two of which make stopovers in North Bay. Although these stopovers are an inconvenience, we recognize Air Canada is at least trying to provide an adequate service to northern Ontario. All efforts to bring Timmins into closer contact with the larger centres in Canada will go to waste if the Prime Minister intends to keep another of his interminable, ill-advised pledges.
It was November, 1978 when the then opposition leader told the House the following:
Air Canada has been unwilling to give up its routes in southwestern and northern Ontario, where regional carriers should be operating.
In the same speech concerning his air transport policy the present Prime Minister, in a statement which may have set the precedent for such gems of conviction as "We will move our embassy to Jerusalem" and "We oppose raising interest rates," made the following declaration:
We will significantly increase the routes open to regional and third level carriers. It makes sense to have major trunk routes served by national carriers; it makes no sense to allow them to dominate regional and local services. Our general approach will be that regional routes of up to 300 miles and turnaround routes of up to 500 miles will be reserved for regional and third level carriers.
Unless the government remains consistent in its fickleness to promises made in the heat of battle and ignores but another policy brainchild, Timmins will be the victim again of this government and will lose its Air Canada service. I caution the government that the people of my riding will not stand still while the government robs it of an essential link with the rest of the nation. I will seek a guarantee that Air Canada service to Timmins will not be sacrificed as a part of this government's apparent commitment to privatize, abandon, sell or dismember the institutions of government which provide a sense of nation-
The Address-Mr. Chenier
al homogeneity and common purpose. I warn the government to tread lightly if it has any intention of slipping Air Canada service away from the citizens of northern Ontario. I take some small encouragement from the fact the government chose to refrain from mentioning air policy in the Speech from the Throne. Perhaps it did this after having given further consideration to some suggestions made prior to the election. [Translation]
Along with several crucial and vital questions, another matter of concern to the constituency of Timmins-Chapleau, in northern Ontario, as well as to several other parts of Canada, was left out of the Speech from the Throne. I refer to the forest industry which is one of the most important sectors of the Canadian economy and the livelihood of thousands of people in the northern part of the province. I represent a region where the pulp, paper and lumber industries are the economic basis of several communities. Those industries are extremely sensitive to export markets, production costs as well as to supply and demand. For instance, the people of Chapleau depend on six lumbermills for their livelihood. Thanks to the initiative of gifted entrepreneurs from northern Ontario, Chapleau has become a major supplier of wood products in both Canada and the United States. I do hope the future of the forest industry in my area and other regions as well will not be jeopardized by the measures the new government intends to take.
But I am alarmed at the prospects for the lumber industry in my riding and all of Canada if the government persists in the policies it contemplates. I refer to the hiking of interest rates and the mortgage deductibility scheme. 1 am told by an official of the Canadian Construction Association that for every percentage point the interest rate on capital is raised, the demand for housing drops by 10,000 units. If we are to believe that the mortgage deductibility goody will increase demand for capital, it will raise mortgage interest rates to even more intolerable levels. Does the government realize what impact these policies will have on the construction and lumber producing industries?
In addition to the soaring interest rates on capital, there are other serious problems facing the construction and lumber industries that this government must address itself to. The cost of lumber has risen 95 per cent since 1975. In the last two years alone, lumber has leaped 40 per cent in price. This has been due to the heavy demand for Canadian forest products in the United States and an almost 50 per cent increase in production costs. The danger in the present situation is obvious. Should the cost of capital and materials continue to rise at the rate they have been, the demand for housing will drop, regardless of the mortgage deductibility gimmick, and in so doing put lumber producers in peril.
I urge this government to consider the real consequences of its actions for the home buyer, the construction industry and
262

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Cooper
the lumber producers if the cost of acquiring housing is driven out of the reach of the average citizen. I urge the government to ponder its actions carefully before another election promise made in desperation backfires and renders severe damage to these sensitive industries of northern Ontario.

Because of the policies implemented by the former government, the mining industry is healthy today. Our mines are flourishing and going ahead with major expansion projects. Texas Gulf, which mines zinc, copper and silver, is buoyant and is in the process of completing a refinery. The iron ore mine of Algoma Steel, located at Wawa, is operating at full capacity. For over a year now, the mining industry inspires confidence in the future. If we want that climate of full employment to extend throughout the mining industry, it is essential for the federal government to introduce measures that will sustain the current impetus and ensure even more investments in all fields of operation and development. [English]
The riding of Timmins-Chapleau is very large indeed. It is a microcosm of Canada. It strives on diversity-diversity of language, diversity of culture, of race, of belief. Each small region lives on a particular industry different from the others. Each town, each village, each hamlet, prides itself on its achievements, its hopes, its participation in the Canadian mosaic.
We also believe that there must be a federal presence among ourselves, a presence that symbolizes that our diversity is not adverse to unity, that all parts of Canada make up the Canadian people, that none must suffer to remain Canadian if all are willing to give a little. Canada will not survive if all the parts demand special status or special privileges. I plead with the Prime Minister and the cabinet to ponder their present approach to bonne entente. Do not let political expediency take precedence over the need to keep Canada as one strong nation.


Mr. George Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty upon rising is to convey my very sincere congratulations to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker upon their appointment, and to you, sir, as Deputy Chairman of Committees, upon your appointment. I can say as one who is new to this House but who has had the opportunity over the years to view the proceedings of this House of Parliament on television that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, and you, sir, have the loyalty and the support of each and every member of this House, and that that loyalty and support is very well deserved indeed.
My second very pleasant duty is to convey my heartiest congratulations to the other two members of Parliament who spoke first as the mover and seconder of this motion, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald). I can say, speaking again as a new member, that they set for me, and for all of us as new members here in Parliament, a very high standard indeed, one which I hope one day we will be able to attain.

I am very glad to have been elected as the member of Parliament for Halifax. Indeed, I might even say that I am relieved to have been elected as member of Parliament for Halifax. I think that I have the distinction of being the member in this House with the smallest majority in all of Canada, 15 votes.


Mr. Knowles:: You have 14 more than you need.


George Thomas Hendery Cooper: My distinguished predecessor, the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, said something very similar. He said to me, "Fifteen votes, don't you think that is overkill? You only need one, you know." I will be talking in a minute about the hon. Mr. Stanfield. My present point is that whether it be one vote, 15 votes or 15,000 votes, it will be my privilege, duty and honour to serve all of the people of the constituency of Halifax, whatever party they support, to the best of my ability, and I look forward to that task very much.
Tradition requires a new member of parliament making his maiden speech to say a few words about his constituency, and I am happy indeed to do so in the case of Halifax because in all this world there can be few communities, I suggest, which are so civilized and yet so close to wild and beautiful nature, so respectful of tradition and yet so eager to look ahead, so lively in the clash of ideas and yet where people are so tolerant of one another.
I could talk about the physical aspects of Halifax, the fact that we have the world's best natural harbour, standing astride the world's busiest shipping lanes, sitting virtually on top of the world's richest fishing grounds. I could talk at length about the historical facts, how Halifax was founded in 1749 and came to be the bastion of British imperial power, military and naval, in North America, how it carried on in that way for a century and a half, and as Canada's major naval station carries on that role today. I could talk about that symbol of Canada which is known the world over, the Halifax Citadel and the old town clock which, incidentally, constitutes the most visited historical site in all of Canada. In that same vein I could talk about how Halifax's social history has been inexorably linked with peace keeping and war making.
I could tell how in 1917 the largest man-made explosion in the history of the world until Hiroshima occurred as a result of a collision in Halifax harbour of a munitions ship and a supply ship during the First World War and killed 2,000 people from the city of Halifax, almost as if they had been at the front lines. I could talk about the convoys of allied merchantmen and fighting ships of World War II, most of which used Halifax as their base from which to build a bridge from the new world to the old. Rather than take refuge in the dull facts of geography and dry dust of history, however, I want to talk about the people of Halifax, and particularly about the most famous adopted son in the history of Halifax, the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield.
Robert Stanfield, a man known to all in his former constituency of Halifax and to everyone in this House as well as to all
October 16, 1979

Canadians, is an example of the very best we can offer in political life. He is a great man, a humble man, a strong man, a magnanimous man, a proud man, a compassionate man, a man who has done more than any living Canadian to bring us together as a people and to heal the wounds of division in this great country.
If, in due time, I were able to become the kind of representative in Parliament that my predecessor, Bob Stanfield, was, I would then regard myself as a fitting representative of the people of Halifax. I promise to them to work toward that goal and I thank them profoundly for placing their confidence in me.
Parliament is an institution that Bob Stanfield loved. So did another great Canadian and another leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker.
I was personally delighted to hear in the Speech from the Throne, which is the subject of this debate, that the new Progressive Conservative Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) plans to restore to Parliament its true role in our democratic system by making the government and the bureaucracy more accountable to Parliament than before. There can be no doubt that in the last decade or two Parliament has been gravely weakened in relation to its powers to control government and bureaucracy. The result has been a corresponding strengthening of those two elements in our lives. If we, as Canadians, are going to keep the power we now have to control government and the bureaucracy, and if we are going to wrest away some of the power that has been taken from us in the past few years, then I suggest that all members of this House must pursue the government's stated goal with vigour and with determination. I see that vigour and determination on all sides in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I see it in every party. If I may say so, I see it especially in many of the new members who have come to this House. All of them are here, I believe, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Cardigan said in his speech seconding this motion, to try to make Parliament work.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I was frankly very disappointed in the opening remarks of the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) in this debate, in which he said he found it humorous that the Rhinoceros party, the joke party from the province of Quebec, had done so well in his constituency in the last federal election, as it did across that province. 1 do not find that situation humorous at all, Mr. Speaker. To me, it is rather a sign of just how far Parliament has fallen into contempt in the eyes of many Canadians as a result of eleven years of government guided by the hon. member and his friends. I say with great sincerity to the hon. member that he should change his attitude, and join with those of us who have come to Parliament to try to make it work in following the suggestion of the Prime Minister that Parliament be given new life in this thirty-first assembly.
There were a number of aspects of the throne speech that will be particularly appealing to the people of Halifax. The first was the promise by the new government to re-establish the spirit of partnership in confederation-to replace a policy
The Address-Mr. Cooper
of confrontation with one of co-operation. We sorely need a change in the climate of federal-provincial relations. The new government got off to a good start, as far as we in Nova Scotia are concerned, when it offshore announced that Nova Scotia would have jurisdiction over its offshore mineral resources from now on.
Some hon. members on the other side have asked why this is so important to us in Nova Scotia. They point to the understanding reached by the former government and the maritime provinces whereby 75 per cent of the benefits of the offshore resources would accrue to the coastal provinces, and the federal government would take 25 per cent. They point out, and I think quite fairly, that the cost of administering that offshore resource, which would have been borne by the federal government under the previous proposal, would probably eat up the whole of that 25 per cent.
1 certainly agree that the net economic benefits in terms of royalties to the coastal provinces under the new arrangement, which has not yet been worked out in detail but which has been promised in principle, may not be all that different from the previous agreement.
In my view there are two very good reasons for dropping the proposal of the former government and adopting the proposal of the new government in relation to offshore resources. First of all, Nova Scotia has a vital interest in being able to control and direct the economic development that will inevitably come to the province as oil and gas are discovered offshore, in a way that best suits the needs of the people who live there. These needs can be assessed and acted upon by the people on the spot, the provincial government of the province of Nova Scotia, and not by bureaucrats, or even politicians from the province, who happen to be here in Ottawa.
The second and more important reason is that jurisdiction over the offshore resources gives to the province of Nova Scotia a new hinterland to exploit and develop. In my view it will help us to acquire a sense of pride and confidence in ourselves that is so essential if we are to realize the economic and the community spiritual values that we ought to be able to attain, as this resource is developed.
The second major thrust of the throne speech that will be particularly well received by my constituents, the citizens of Halifax, reads as follows:
The greatest immediate challenge facing Canada today is to restore growth, confidence, and jobs to the Canadian economy.
In setting out its five-part strategy on this matter the government emphasized its proposal to build on the strengths of the various regions in the country. It talked in particular, in relation to the constituents of Halifax, about shipbuilding and about a Canadian merchant marine. I can say without any hesitation that there could not be two proposals better construed to help put the unemployed back to work in Halifax and to create a sound economic future than those two. I would like to explain to the House that only two years ago as many as 1,600 men and women were employed in the Halifax shipyard. As a result of a slowdown in work and a change in ownership

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Cooper
of the company in question, the number dropped to 300 at the lowest point.
The Prime Minister has obviously recognized, in the 200-year tradition of shipbuilding and the pride of craftsmanship that exists in the city of Halifax and the Atlantic provinces, that there is a regional strength upon which to build those particular industries and upon which to build the Atlantic region of Canada. For that reason I commend the government for recognizing this strength and for its proposal to build on it.
My constituents will also be happy to see the government's proposal to strengthen the mandate of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. When the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) became Prime Minister in 1968 he raised great hopes in Atlantic Canada that at last we would be able to begin the long climb toward economic equality with the rest of Canada as his concept of the just society took effect. And, to his credit, he did set up DREE giving it the job of working with provincial governments toward that equality.
What is the state of affairs in Atlantic Canada today, ten years after DREE was established? Unfortunately, DREE has not worked entirely successfully, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy of Atlantic Canada. Yes, it has provided much needed infrastructure for our towns, cities, industries and commercial ventures there. Yes, DREE has provided many millions of dollars to commercial enterprises to help them get under way. But since 1969 the average income for Canadians living in Atlantic Canada has risen from 70.2 per cent to only 74.1 per cent of the Canadian average. At this rate it would take us a full 60 years to catch up. And, what is worse, if you take from those figures the portion attributable to transfer payments to individuals, such as unemployment insurance, the percentages show that we have gained hardly at all compared to the Canadian average. The figures have risen from 65.6 per cent to only 66.8 per cent in one decade. In short, our net gains in Atlantic Canada have come from feeding out of the government trough. By far, we would rather have work than have to live on unemployment insurance. As it is, we are in grave danger of becoming a dependent society incapable of acting on our own, and able to carry on only because of a permanent "fix" of federal funds.
This state of affairs must end. It must end not only because of the financial drain on Canadians who live elsewhere in Canada who are required to sluice their money in great quantities, in ever increasing amounts, to Atlantic Canada. But also it must end because of the spiritual and social malaise that this kind of dependency brings about in those who receive this kind of money as gifts.
1 believe that we in Atlantic Canada, a once proud people and a still proud people, are in danger of losing belief in ourselves, belief in our own ability to get on with the job, without which we will not only stagnate but stagnate unhappily. I do not believe that anyone who is in a permanently dependent state is happy.

How do we in Parliament move to end this state of affairs, Mr. Speaker? As I said, the previous government, in good conscience, tried to solve the problem of regional disparity by creating DREE to deal with it. But it was in those times a weak sister. There were always other, bigger, departments of government whose concerns overrode DREE. They often wiped out at a stroke, often times unintentionally, or unthink-lingly, all the good that DREE had done. What is the use of spending millions of dollars on manufacturing plants in Atlantic Canada if a national policy of user-pay is adopted by the Department of Transport in such a way that it is no longer possible for our manufacturing plants to ship goods or sell them competitively in the markets of central Canada? What is the use of spending millions of dollars for infrastructure to assist commercial and industrial development in Atlantic Canada if the Foreign Investment Review Agency is set up to screen out foreign investment, not only in central Canada where such screening may make sense but also in Atlantic Canada where there is hardly any industry to begin with?
it is not enough to continue to dole out more and more money to the needy provinces, cities, towns, companies and individuals who live there, and hope to solve our problems in that way. To be sure we need to have this money in the short term just to stay alive. But in the longer term we must instead put regional concerns at the very centre of policy-making in this country. We must examine each policy and each program of each department of government, not only DREE, and we must apply to those policies and programs this test: how will this policy or that program affect the economy of every region of this country? Then we must tailor-make those policies and programs to fit the particular needs of each region of Canada.
I believe our new Prime Minister understands this point very well. He has lived in every region of Canada. He was born and raised on the prairies. He lived for a year in my own constituency of Halifax. He has lived on the west coast of Canada, and of course he has lived in the central region of the country. He has seen at first-hand the diversity of this country and the differing needs of each and every part. The Prime Minister understands that we here in Parliament in Ottawa can only attain Canadian unity and economic strength by respecting those differences and by building on the strengths of each of the regions.
When the Speech from the Throne refers to strengthening the mandate of DREE, and about taking into account regional needs, I hope and believe that the Prime Minister and the government have in mind a mechanism for ensuring that these regional concerns will be reflected in the policies and programs of all departments from now on.
In 1878 Sir John A. Macdonald, Prime Minister of Canada, proclaimed his famous "national policy." This policy was founded on three programs: a coast to coast railway; large scale immigration from the old world to Canada; and a tariff barrier to protect and develop central Canadian industry. This was a good policy for Canada. Indeed, it was an essential policy. Without it we would never have become a large scale manufacturer of secondary products, of manufactured goods
October 16, 1979

nor would we have been able to build the rich and modern land that we have today. Yet this national policy was unashamedly directed at building up the central region of this country to the exclusion-one might almost say at the expense-of another, the Atlantic region.
In 1878 Atlantic Canada had a highly developed commercial sector. Atlantic Canada carried on a sophisticated trade with our natural north-south trading partner, the United States of America. While there were many goods we did not make ourselves, we could import those goods cheaply from the United States and other countries without any tariff or customs duties. Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy changed all that. The new tariff barriers cut off cheap imports from the United States. And the retaliatory tariff barriers raised against us made it difficult for Atlantic Canada to sell goods abroad. Nevertheless, I do not complain about Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy. I praise it. It was a necessary policy in the interest of developing the great Canadian hinterland, even if it did hurt Atlantic Canada.
The time has come to try to redress that balance once and for all. Let all of us in this Thirty-first Parliament set ourselves a goal. Let us adopt a new national policy, unashamedly directed at building up those regions of Canada which remain economically deprived 101 years after Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy. Let us not think of these programs as being regional ones. Rather, let us think of them as being national ones, designed to build on the strength of the deprived regions for the benefit of all Canada. Let us know and believe the truth, that it is only when we have strong and healthy economic regions in Canada that we can have a strong and healthy nation.
In closing, I wish to thank the people of Halifax for sending me here as their representative. I look forward to working closely with members on all sides of the House as together we serve the country we love, Canada.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I echo the good wishes and congratulations expressed by the previous speakers. I would like to comment briefly on the statements made by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who considered that the fact the speech did not refer to the Quebec problem was not per se a serious omission. To me, this shows that the hon. member for Joliette is just a little like his party, either irresponsible or naive.


An hon. Member:: Both!


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, 75 per cent of Quebeckers polled recently on behalf of the Quebec government said they would insist on a renewed constitution as the only condition to remain within Canada. Is the Progressive Conservative government going to negotiate sovereignty-association as it did for natural resources? Will its
The Address-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette preoccupation to please the provinces go that far? On May 22, Quebeckers did not trust the Progressive Conservative Party and maybe they were right, because they do not feel this party understands them. It offers no clear action on the constitutional issue, no guarantee for the survival of French Canadians, as there was in Bill C-60. No mention of the human rights bill, no mention of patriation of the constitution or of amendment formula, no linguistic and cultural guarantee. In short, Quebec is still waiting and will probably wait forever for the Progressive Conservative government to take a precise stand on the constitutional question.
Just last night, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rene Levesque, speaking in Hull, promised to absorb federal public servants no more than two years after winning the referendum. How does the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis) intend to counter such assertions? Is he going to negotiate the transfer to Quebec of federal public servants? Perhaps this would enable him to implement the promises made during the electoral campaign about cutting manpower. Does the Clark government show a sense of responsibility when it abdicates in favour of the provinces without demanding anything to maintain some kind of equilibrium at the central level? Indeed it abdicates its responsibilities in the field of economics by leaving to the private sector the task of planning the future of Canadians. It abdicates its responsibilities toward all the minorities, be it on a cultural or social level. The only voice from the minorities that it seems to pay attention to is that of the multinationals. They may represent a numerical minority but they certainly do not when it comes to power. When will the Clark government start governing in the interest of all Canadians? When will it be through paying off its electoral debts?
After hearing the proposals contained in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the housing issue, I am left asking myself some serious questions such as to whom is this policy directed? Is it designed for the majority which dwells in expensive houses and whose taxes take a large share of the budget already higher than those who will also have to foot the bill? Where do we find measures which will help workers buy their houses? Where do we find a housing credit for single mothers or the elderly? Where do we find a sense of equity in the housing policy of the Progressive Conservative government?
In the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, there is also a commitment to reduce government expenses. Who is going to pay for those reductions? People who get old age pension, family allowances or unemployment benefits? Once again, Mr. Speaker, I wonder who the Progressive Conservative government is governing for.
We could only be pleased with that promise to reduce expenses in the public service, since the former government itself had come forward with major budget cuts last year. However, we notice that during the six months since this

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette government was elected, so many people have been hired to work in the office of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) that a new bureaucracy is obviously growing within his cabinet. Some public servants who are not very high in that hierarchy and who are in a position to speak without fear, even told us that there have been more favouritism and political appointments in the last six months than in the last ten years before this government took power. How many more political appointments are they still planning to make, Mr. Speaker? While there is an indication in the Speech from the Throne that there will be a reduction in the number of public servants, 1 do not know of any mention about an increase in the number of friends of the party in power within government.
May I remind them that the last CROP poll, which was published yesterday, still gives them the support of only 37 per cent of the voters, compared with 41 per cent to the Liberals, and that it would be dangerous to govern only for those 37 per cent. I urge them to have faith in the public service, which has no partisanship and which always considered that it was its duty to serve all Canadians. What does the Progressive Conservative Party want to do with Canada? A society with more justice, or a society which will follow the dictates of Gallup polls?
For young workers, Mr. Speaker, this Speech from the Throne contains a very important measure, namely, the promise of jobs. How does the government intend to carry out that promise? By opening new offices, thus creating jobs for those who will be working in those new offices? There are now, Mr. Speaker, hiring centres like Canada Manpower Centres on campuses and I think there are quite enough of them. 1 would rather urge the Progressive Conservative government to go and see their business friends to ask them to hire those young people.
For large and low income families, for older people, who is going to pay the bill for their food basket which is going to increase substantially, at least 10 per cent, if the oil pricing policy of this government is implemented? For them, one only has to know that it represents up to 27 per cent of their income and one wonders whether that amount and percentage can be further increased without any thought of rebellion on their part. Personally we are going to fight relentlessly such inequity because the social impact of such a move is such that it can lead to a general downgrading of the quality of life for the Canadian people, in addition to affecting seriously the health of the aged.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the freedom of information act, we can only be pleased with it. And we hope it will be fully implemented on the basis of objective criteria that will give all groups, as well as parliamentarians, access to government information. However, that kind of legislation should not be a cover-up for such intentions as revealing to officials the conclusions of a report even before it is written. The Middle East issue is an example.


With the perspective of encouraging individual initiative and promoting private enterprise, because these are the principles of modern liberalism, I intend to propose a bill to promote profit sharing. Within the state of actual fiscal policy there does not exist any mechanism to instil in private enterprise the wish to return to the employees their share in the profits made in the fiscal year, other than pension plans, and these too are limited.
1 propose using the tax structure to provide an incentive to companies to return a portion of their profits to their employees, by reducing their actual rate of taxation for that portion. On the other hand, for the employees who receive these benefits the tax structure would be amended in such a way as to reduce the rate of tax on their portion of the profits, adding to their net income. The goal of this measure would be to initiate a positive dialogue between the company and its employees in order to reach the common objective, which is the financial success of the enterprise.
This measure would help to demystify the question of profits and remove from it the immoral character it has received at the hands of socialist ideology. Moreover, this profit sharing scheme would enhance co-operation between employer and employee, which in turn should lead to an increase in production. An additional asset of this plan would be to reduce the number of strikes by making employers and employees partners instead of opponents.
The Progressive Conservative government promises in the Speech from the Throne to look after working women, with an employment strategy, and I can only welcome that. However, what do they intend to do for women who stay at home and who are now at the bottom of the social ladder? According to a recent report released by the National Council on Social Welfare last October, 1,219,000 women in Canada, one out of six, lived below the poverty line. In that category are included 44 per cent of women who are heads of families with dependent children. That latter category includes 50 per cent who do not receive alimony or who must get it by fighting in court.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to introduce a bill on the compulsory collection of alimony on behalf of those women, since they are not represented in this House. We shall not accept the jurisdictional argument which was used for too long as an excuse for inaction. Canadian women with dependent children should be given priority by the Canadian government in this period of low birth-rate. Why punish a woman who wants to stay home to raise her children by forcing her to live on welfare? The federal government has a responsibility in this matter since it contributes 50 per cent of the provincial welfare funds. It has therefore a direct interest in this matter. These funds could be used to improve the lot of the community as a whole and of the needy, and could be reduced in the years to come.
October 16, 1979

If the Clark government would only see in this a means of relieving the taxpayers' burden, they might understand that they could achieve a dual objective by taking such a measure. On the one hand, they would reduce the amounts appropriated for social programs and increase the national productivity as all those in receipt of alimony payments guaranteed and collected by the state in case of default by the husband would not be automatically deprived of part-time work. Of course, this measure would also apply when the father must stay home to take care of his family.
This is why I ask that the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs meet urgently to discuss this matter and prepare immediately a proposal for the next federal-provincial conference for the approval of the provinces in principle. The spirit of co-operation which prevails in this government should ensure the passage of such a measure in the interests of all Canadian men and women.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should now like to deal with my special concerns for the Montreal area. The economic propects are rather gloomy at present. The strike in the port of Montreal may well have an indirect impact on food costs in the forthcoming season. The province of Quebec, with an adverse balance in agriculture, cannot afford to see food costs rise unduly. We hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) will take the necessary steps to solve this conflict before freeze-up.
Furthermore, the work at Place Guy Favreau is progressing very slowly. We ask the minister responsible to speed up the work, particularly in view of the problems facing construction workers every winter.
As concerns the chronic problem of public transportation, after the 8-month strike in Quebec City, the current Montreal strike is causing serious prejudice to the economy of the province. So we call for a study on public transportation in large centres in consultation with the provincial governments, because we keep in mind that the users of public transportation cannot express their views, particularly older people and students.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my constituents for the confidence they put in me on May 22 last. I consider it as a very great responsibility and I shall strive in the coming months to serve the interests of all. As you may know already, Mr. Speaker, my riding is located at the far end of the island of Montreal. It is largely made up of workers who are now suffering from an unacceptable unemployment situation for an urban area, at a rate of 9.5 per cent. However, since for the Progressive Conservative government there is a national average and another standard for job-creation programs, I must say that we are very concerned with the coming of winter. The Canada Works program has been reduced by half, but no alternative has been proposed to deal with the problems that will crop up this winter. So we are most eager to see the economic development strategy that the Clark
The Address-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette government intends to adopt in metropolitan Montreal. Let me say that we already have an interesting industrial infrastructure. What is lacking above all is the confidence of investors.
What steps does the Clark government intend to take to ensure eventual investors in Quebec that they have no particular problems to fear in Quebec in the present state of things?
Is the Progressive Conservative majority, which was elected mainly out of Quebec, willing to give the guarantees necessary to ensure the fulfillment of Quebeckers in Canada? After more than ten years of reflection, has the Progressive Conservative government found the magical words which will bring all Canadians together without abdicating its responsibilities? This afternoon the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said that the former government was the cause of all our problems. Allow me to have a different opinion than my distinguished colleague and let me say that the former government certainly made every effort to bring Canadians together in a new direction towards a new Canada. The citizens of Mercier who have elected a PQ representative for nine years now expect more than a vague promise when it comes to future commitments.
Instead of dealing hastily with the energy problem, the Progressive Conservative government should plan the development of all national resources, without penalizing provinces that are poorer in raw materials, by diversifying renewable and non-renewable resources. In Eastern Quebec in particular, we are counting on the forthcoming development of the natural gas system, as well as on measures to promote increased development of that resource that is being underutilized in eastern Canada. We therefore recommend early studies to develop the gas potential in Baffin Island in order to shorten the Eastern provinces' supply lines.
In the energy area, and development in particular, I would point out that the former Liberal government did not hinder development in the western provinces, but rather promoted it. We expect the western premier will do the same for the eastern energy potential. On the issue of community housing for the underprivileged and the aged, we invite the government, in view of the throne speech, to plan its intended actions in that area carefully. The constituency of Mercier does not have a population of executives living in houses worth $100,000 and up, but rather a population of workers and pensioners who need housing at reasonable cost.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me invite my colleagues opposite, and especially the cabinet ministers, to visit the province of Quebec and get acquainted with the problem there. As a member of Parliament elected to maintain Quebec in Confederation, I urge hon. members to realize the urgency and seriousness of the situation. I speak on behalf of Francophones, Anglophones and newcomers who also are expecting concrete actions from a government that has almost no representation from Quebec.

The Address-Mr. Siddon

We are waiting for a sign in English-speaking Canada, for friendship, for the rebuilding of a new country in which equal rights are recognized for both groups. If I am here today, Mr. Speaker, it is to make sure that this dream cherished by most Quebeckers will come true.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, may I add my felicitations to those of other members who have congratulated you upon your re-election to the chair. I am pleased to speak in support of the motion, to thank His Excellency the Governor General for his most gracious Speech from the Throne.
I would also like to compliment the hon. member who has just preceded me. She spoke from her heart about her concern for all of Canada, and I am sure we will all give heed to her plea to those of us who perhaps do not understand French Canada as well as we should, to find ways of enabling this country to work together more effectively in the future.
I wish also to compliment my hon. friend from Erie (Mr. Fretz) and my hon. friend from Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) for the fitting way in which they moved and seconded the motion of thanks to His Excellency.
This day, October 16, is a very special day for me, as it happens to be the anniversary of my first election to Parliament in a by-election one year ago. I feel fortunate to have had the privilege of sitting in opposition for a few months because it gave me a useful exposure to the serious defects of the former government which led to its downfall on May 22. I think we have all learned some lessons from that. If our many new initiatives, as so clearly set out in the throne speech, are allowed to bear fruit, I expect to be viewing my old seat from this more enlightened position on Mr. Speaker's right for many years to come.
Today is also a very special day for me in other respects as well. First, it was a very great privilege for me to take my seat in this Thirty-first Parliament with a man who is one of the finest examples of public stewardship. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was the commissioner of my wolf cub pack when I joined it in Drumheller, Alberta, over 30 years ago. By that time he had already been a provincial MLA for almost ten years.
Indeed, in 40 years of public service, much of it as a cabinet minister in the Alberta government, the hon. member for Bow River has proved himself to be an outstanding and dedicated servant to the people of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: It was this man who gave me my first and strongest perspectives of what it means truly to serve humankind by virtue of elected office, and I am sure all in this House will benefit from his wisdom and counsel.
I am also proud to share a place in this Parliament with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). He is a
[Mrs. Hervieux-Payette.)
October 16, 1979
great Canadian of firm political conviction. He possesses a deep respect for the true principles of justice.
I will always remember that day in 1957 when the hon. member for Calgary North came to my home town of Drumheller, riding in a brightly coloured convertible. At his side was Canada's future Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. That evening in the local arena Dief spoke, just as he always spoke, with great oratory and passion about his love of Canada and his concern for those less prosperous parts and peoples of Canada whose needs had been neglected for decades by the dominant establishment in central Canada.
As a young man of 15 I was impressed by his message, and to this day I must credit John Diefenbaker with the kindling of my interest in our system of parliamentary democracy and in the political idealogies which shape it. I know he aroused those instincts in the hearts of many who sit in this Parliament today, especially some of my younger colleagues on this side of the House. It was a genuine honour to have known such a man and to have shared this place with him during those last few months of his life. He made Parliament live in a way which few others can. He made it accessible to every one of his 'fellow Canadians". I know that his inspiration will carry on in the lives of those who follow.
Indeed, it is one of those who followed who now leads the government of this great nation as our Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). The right hon. member for Yellowhead has come a long way from those days at the University of Alberta when I remember him as the controversial, outspoken young editor of our campus newspaper, The Gateway. In fact he has come a long way in the short time since May 22 of this year. By his example he has shown us how to be optimistic about the future potential of this great nation. At the same time he has developed strength of leadership to make his promise become a reality. His strength was never more plainly revealed to the members of this House than it was last Wednesday afternoon, when the Prime Minister delivered his first and very excellent speech to this Thirty-first Parliament. I believe that all Canadians will find his style of leadership to be a refreshing change from that of his immediate predecessor.
If hon. members would indulge me I would like to take a few moments now to tell them something about the part of Canada which I am privileged to represent. The riding of Richmond-South Delta is situated at the lower reaches of the Fraser River, encompassing most of the fertile soils and biologically productive marshes of the Fraser River delta. The northern-most community of Richmond is home for almost 100,000 Canadians who live on a beautiful island known as Lulu Island. The island has an elevation entirely at or below sea level, being completely surrounded by dikes and crisscrossed by countless drainage ditches. These drainage ditches provide flood protection not only from the Fraser River but also from the occasional winter rains which some may have heard about, and which are sent our way from the city of Vancouver, located to our immediate north.
October 16, 1979

Richmond is a progressive, well-planned, and growing city which offers a unique balance of natural habitat, agricultural production, beautiful gardens, parks, recreational facilities, light industries, and pleasant residential neighbourhoods. It is also the site of Vancouver International Airport, which occupies Sea Island, to the immediate northwest of the downtown centre of Richmond.
To the south of Richmond lies the municipality of Delta, located between the south arm of the Fraser River and the United States border. I am privileged to share in the representation of Delta with my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). My portion of Delta includes the two communities of Tsaw-wassen and Ladner. Tsawwassen is a modern and quite prosperous community known for its almost perpetual sunshine, pleasant beaches, and good community spirit. It shares a short international boundary with Point Roberts, U.S.A.-and votes rather conservatively, 1 might add.
To the north of Tsawwassen, on the south shore of the Fraser River, lies the historic farming and fishing community of Ladner. Ladner reminds me most of my own hometown because it is a small community with a deep sense of its history and an instinct for survival, as witnessed by the many small businesses which consolidate the town centre.
Delta and Richmond both grew out of the pioneering enterprise of the farmers and fishermen who came to settle on the soggy marshes of the Fraser River. In November of this year each municipality celebrates the hundredth anniversary of its incorporation, and many centennial events have been held throughout the year. In those days of 100 years ago a group of Japanese immigrants established a fishing village at the southwest corner of Lulu Island. Other settlers came from the British Isles and eastern Canada. Soon, fishing villages, wharves and canneries had sprung up all along the lower reaches of the Fraser River. As a result the communities of Steveston and Ladner remain today as an important focus for the commercial fishing industry of southern British Columbia. The Japanese who came to find their new life in Canada have flourished as a strong and respected source of cultural diversity in our midst.
On the nearby farmland, diked and drained with a century of toil, our people grow blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, cranberries, and vegetables of every description. Waterfront industries and urban development are also welcomed by my communities, and they have been allowed to proliferate because of their strategic importance to our economy and to our citizens. But the people of Richmond-South Delta are ever conscious of their links with the river, where wild fowl and young salmon flourish, nurtured by the natural habitat which rests in such fragile balance with the progress of mankind.
Of course, I shall have many future opportunities to tell this House of the problems and needs of my constituents, but for today I thought 1 would merely give a travelogue and a sense of the spirit of those 1 am privileged to represent here. I am grateful for the trust which they have placed in me once again, and I will do my utmost to serve them well.
The Address-Mr. Siddon
1 want to turn now to the throne speech directly and to underscore what I feel to be the central message from His Excellency. I believe that the throne speech provides us with a blueprint for a new spirit of co-operation and mutual trust within this great nation. By recognizing our regional, cultural and institutional differences as genuine assets, we can use them as tools to rediscover that positive spirit of optimism and innovation which possessed the Fathers of Confederation more than 100 years ago. As the Prime Minister has so frequently pointed out, we in Canada have many strengths on which to build, but the process must start here in Parliament which, after all, is little more than a microcosm of all the diverse attitudes and aspirations of Canadians. The throne speech states that, and I quote:
The great immediate challenge facing Canada today is to restore growth, confidence and jobs to the Canadian economy.
1 believe that goal can only be achieved if we can first of all purge our society of a serious illness which has infiltrated the attitude of Canadians in recent years. That illness I will call the illness of distrust. I believe that this illness is not visible in the deteriorating relationship which has developed in recent years between this federal government and the thousands of private sector businesses which form the backbone of our economy.
But this illness is not restricted to relations between government and private businesses. It is to be found also in the attitude of government bureaucracy toward the individual citizen, and in the distrust of the citizen toward his government. It is to be found in the relationship between provinces and the federal government, in the relationship between French and English Canada, between labour and management, between native peoples and non-natives, pro-nucs and anti-nucs, and of course between the opposition and government sides of this House.
I believe that this sickness must be cured, and it will be cured if we find a way to replace confrontation with compromise; if we can sacrifice self interest for the sake of the common good; if we can refrain from intentional exaggeration, and selective mis-use of statistics to argue a point.
On that score I should like to cite an example. We regularly hear in this House from some hon. members, particularly on the other side, of the so-called high rates of profiteering by certain industries in our country. I suggest that the rates that are cited are selectively chosen to discredit certain of the private sector corporations in this country. By selectively quoting percentage profit increases, without any honest attempt being made to tie these profit increases to the base profit for the previous year, Canadians are given a distorted and misleading impression that some corporations are making windfall profits. But a 50 per cent profit increase over a 4 per cent return on investment amounts to only a 6 per cent return on investment.
What these hon. members do not explain to the people of Canada is that if return on investment is lower than the

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Siddon
interest rate on bonds or loans, then there will be no capital investment in speculative ventures, and with no money invested in this country far fewer jobs will be created, unless of course the federal government decides to step in, as it did for the past decade, and continually finance make-work projects, with increasing amounts of debt capital. As an aside, let me say that I would welcome from hon. members opposite in the coming days an explanation or a justification of ever increasing deficits. I would welcome it particularly from our good friends down in the far corner of the Elouse.
Another example of distrust which I feel is often displayed in the Elouse occurs whenever an hon. member makes sweeping insinuations about certain companies which may or may not be under investigation, or when a member casts doubt on the motives of another member. I saw this happen in recent days when an hon. member made reference to a certain meeting among three cabinet ministers, and tried to suggest a less than proper motive for that meeting. I believe that this sort of star chamber justice, this attempt to find ghosts where none exist, has no place in this House of Commons, and in fact and indeed casts an adverse reflection on every one of us.
I am convinced that certain political attitudes in this country have been systematically whittling away at the credibility of private enterprise. Our government is about to reverse that trend. We believe that our laws are the tools to cope with illegal conduct by any businesses or individuals who would take advantage. These laws should be enforced and respected. But we must dispense with the current notion that the government must have a window on industry in order to "keep them honest". We hear that term quite often from some of our friends in the House and outside it. This approach does not work. It destroys the respect which private businesses must hold toward the government which sets the rules. We in the government intend to give individual initiative and opportunity to flourish once again and to stimulate the enthusiasm of all our citizens to take a stake, to share in the risks of building a better Canada.
1 would like to deal with a few special topics, Mr. Speaker, but I would prefer to carry on at eight o'clock. So, may I call it six o'clock now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent to calling it six o'clock and allowing the hon. member to complete his remarks at eight o'clock when we resume the sitting?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take the floor once again to continue my presentation in reply to the Speech from the Throne. As I was saying before six o'clock, we have a serious problem in the country, a problem relating to distrust which many Canadians feel toward their government, and which governments within the country feel toward one another. The problem of distrust seems to permeate all the actions of government, at least of the government in office until May 22 of this year.
Now I should like to discuss a number of specific situations starting with the one which has been thoroughly debated and on which we have been thoroughly battered by members of the opposition, and that is the question of Petro-Canada. I should like to put the following question to the House: do we feel the private sector oil companies of this country have shown cause to be distrusted?
I put a question to the president of Petro-Canada a few weeks ago, and 1 think the answer he gave was very important. I asked the president of Petro-Canada if, on the basis of having a window on the petroleum industry, he had any cause to distrust or to suspect the motives of any of the private sector oil companies in the country, and he said that he did not. Further he indicated that he had nothing but the highest regard for the senior executive administration of the private sector oil companies in the country. That is an important observation which must go on record.
Many members of the House feel some concern as to what Petro-Canada has learned as a result of this virtuous "window on industry" by which they propose to have advantage. I have strong reasons to suspect that if one were to ask the president of Petro-Canada what special information it has obtained as a consequence of having this window on industry, one would be severely disappointed in the information one would receive.
A colleague of mine asked the president of Petro-Canada what Petro-Canada feels it can do better than any private sector oil company in the country. As 1 recall it, the answer was that there was nothing Petro-Canada could do better, in the interests of this nation, than the private sector can do; that the only difference is that Petro-Canada might do it faster. Of course that refers to the ability to bring on offshore resources and petroleum reserves more quickly than the private sector. Then that becomes a matter of price because, if the price is right, the private sector will do it equally as fast. But if Petro-Canada has access to subsidized capital to pursue such exploration, of course it can do it more quickly.
Hon. members of the House should ask themselves if Petro-Canada is really profitable. Hon. members of the opposition have told us how profitable Petro-Canada is. But 1 have an article from a recent issue of The Globe and Mail which indicates that in 1978 Petro-Canada reported a profit of $13.7 million. The equity value of Petro-Canada is $3 billion, so this total profit represents less than .5 per cent return on investment. I think that is atrocious, and certainly no private sector corporation could exist in the country with that rate of return on investment.
October 16, 1979

Also I should like to ask another question in the House this evening. Who owns Petro-Canada? We have heard a lot of comment to the effect that Canadians own Petro-Canada. The government of this nation extended $800 million worth of equity capital to Petro-Canada which we financed by adding to our debt, and not one nickel of interest has been returned to the Crown in relation to the $800 million. In addition to that, Petro-Canada borrowed $1.5 billion in order to acquire the assets of Pacific Petroleums Co. Does the House realize where this equity came from? It was issued in the form of term preferred shares to the private banking system of the country. They went to the United States and elsewhere to borrow that money. If members of the House want to delude Canadians into believing that we own PetroCan, they are fooling the masses. Petro-Canada is owned by multinational interests who have loaned $1.5 billion to this country, and the shares are held in the names of the private chartered banks of Canada.
If one reads a financial statement of Petro-Canada, one will find that it has assets of $3 billion and liabilities of $849 million to the Crown of Canada. Where is the difference? The difference is in the form of term preferred shares issued to private sector banks in the country. They are the ones who have title to Petro-Canada.
I must ask members of the House what their wish is? Would they prefer that the private chartered banks own the shares and borrow the money internationally, or would they prefer that Canadians have an opportunity to own a piece of Petro-Canada? I recommend that the House consider the importance of giving individual Canadians the option to purchase shares, to own a portion of Petro-Canada, and to accept a portion of the risk.
Also 1 should like to ask one final question. Should the Government of Canada be engaged in those profitable sectors of our economy in order to pay for the costs of the high risk areas where indeed the government must play a role? The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) have suggested that we should use the profitable portions of Petro-Canada to finance its losses. I say, rubbish. That is not the role of the Government of Canada. If that was the case, we would want to own the multinational grocery merchandising firms in this country which enjoy a good rate of return on investment, and we would want to own, indeed, all the profitable ventures in this country. 1 submit that it is private individuals who should own a stake in Petro-Canada. It should be a Canadian-owned corporation, and the return on investment should go to those Canadians who choose to participate.
With that off my chest, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments in the area of fisheries. I think that it is important that we re-establish trust, as I have indicated earlier in my representation, among the government, the bureaucracy, and the people affected by the decisions made by the bureaucracy. In the area of fisheries there has been a dismal record indeed, wherein decisions were taken within the bureaucracy
The Address-Mr. Siddon
with the consent of the minister, and after the fact those decisions were reported to the fishermen. That must change.
It is time that we instituted a policy of consultation. Since the appointment of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), as Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a large number of initiatives have been taken to improve federal-provincial relations in the administration of our fisheries, and to improve relations with the canning industry, fishermen, and other fishing related industries. For example, the minister has recently met with the Atlantic fisheries council of provincial ministers and the Pacific fisheries council of provincial ministers. This is a first in many, many months, if not longer.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has announced that a major review of fisheries policy in Canada will be undertaken and presented to this House in the form of a white paper, with the participation of the provinces, fishermen, and the fishing industry. That is a first. The minister also indicated that the difficult questions of licensing and the recommendations of the Sinclair Report and Levelton Report will be subject for discussion and debate by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Environment.
Such action is an expression of this government's willingness to involve all members of parliament in debate and discussions on issues of importance to that very important sector of our economy. The new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken initiatives that were long overdue. I would submit that in many other areas of our government similar initiatives will be taken, and that we will be using all the resources of Parliament and inviting the input of all points of view in order to evolve policies in the interest of Canadians and in the interest of maximizing the return of those very abundant resources which we enjoy in the great country of Canada.
On the questions of energy policy there have been committees formed which have worked diligently through the summer, and a national energy policy should be forthcoming soon. That policy will deal with the short-term problems of security, of supply and incentives to conservation. In the mid-term a policy will be introduced which will find ways to ensure that the seven or eight oil sands plants and heavy oil installations are brought on stream by 1990 in order to make this country self-sufficient in energy. That policy will also address the question of long-term alternatives, not merely restricted to nuclear power, but including the consideration of a number of other very attractive alternatives.
We have reason for nothing but optimism relative to the future of our economy and opportunities for young Canadians. If we are to tap those opportunities we must make a special attack on the question of increased support for research and development in this country. It is long overdue that we stop all the platitudes and get down to finding a formula that will ensure, at least in the immediate future, that 1.5 per cent of our gross national product is re-invested in science and technology, and in the long run a level approaching 2.5 per cent. If it requires that we insist upon research and developmental technology content in foreign investment in Canada to the tune of 1.5 per cent, then we must insist upon it. And if we must

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. McCauley
insist that companies investing in Canada extend world product mandates for the products of our technology, then those are initiatives that we must take.
Finally, in relation to science and technology, I would suggest that the universities of this country are an important training ground. I spent ten years of my life in a university in Canada in a technological area, and I have been appalled and astounded by the pitiful lack of support by the former government for science and technology. It is high time that we had a policy recognizing that fact. For every oil sands plant to be brought on stream, we may require as many as 3,000 engineers and many other technical people. We must provide the training for those people and recognize that, if we do not accept that challenge now, we will be importing those technologies later.
Before 1 conclude, 1 would like to say that there has been a tremendous preoccupation in this country with programs of equalization DREE, U1C, welfare and all the other programs which have granted subsidies and special initiatives to various parts of this country. These programs have been overlapping and filled with redundancy. When we in this government introduce a program such as our scheme of mortgage credits, it is designed to benefit the people who have been footing the bill for all these other programs. It is high time that these people obtained a few concessions from this government.
In conclusion, what the Prime Minister was saying in this House was that we must restore mutual trust in one another, not only here in Parliament but in all the institutions of this nation and in the attitude of people toward this government. Trust is bred by a spirit of good will and a penchant for openness, tempered by a healthy respect for the other person's point of view. It is achieved by making a genuine effort to gather all the facts, not just some of the facts, by discussing our differences and arriving at an honest consensus.
I see that process as being a catalyst and also the consequence of initiatives set out in the throne speech. I hope to look back on the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada as a success story in re-establishing trust among Canadians.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, as the member of parliament for Moncton in the land of New Brunswick, the picture province of Canada, I am very proud to be addressing the House today, proud of my riding and proud of the people I represent.
The riding of Moncton encompasses many different communities, some large, some small, from the thriving villages of Petitcodiac and Salisbury in the west, to the growing community of Dieppe in the east. The motto of the city of Moncton itself is "Resurgio", a triumphant motto for a city which has overcome many serious setbacks over the course of its history. That part of the riding in which I and my family reside is the fastest growing community in Atlantic Canada-Riverview, New Brunswick-a friendly town whose citizens participate and work hard to make it the attractive community it is.
Moncton is famous for its Magnetic Hill where automobiles seem to go up hill without any visible means of propulsion,

proverbial or otherwise. We also have the world famous tidal bore which tourists from all over North America flock to see. More recently we are proud of our growing l'Universite de Moncton, with the first French speaking school of law east of Quebec City.
But the real strength of any community, Mr. Speaker, is not its tourist attractions or its institutions, but rather its people. In the only officially bilingual province of Canada we have, in the riding of Moncton, a microcosm of Canada where two cultures live side by side, both enriching the other, and giving to the community a flavour and a flair to which not many communities of this country can lay claim. With enlightened leadership and the commitment of reasonable men and women we offer a shining example to the rest of Canada.
My reaction to the Speech from the Throne is somewhat mixed. It is very obvious to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) canvassed everyone he could think of for ideas for the speech. Then he hung his ideas out like a drab wash on a clothesline and called it a throne speech. There is no theme to the speech, no connecting link, no underlying philosophy. The Speech from the Throne could have been a clarion call to Canadians from a new government intent on a new beginning for Canada. Instead, it turned out to be a clothesline. To be fair to clotheslines, even they have their good points.
I congratulate the government for its promise to introduce freedom of information legislation based, as the Speech from the Throne says, on the principle that government information should be available to the people and necessary exceptions to that principle should be limited and specified, and disputes over application of those exceptions should be resolved independently of the government. Those are noble words, Mr. Speaker. We can only hope that they result in some legislative action. In New Brunswick we have also heard noble words about a freedom of information act, but the act has not as yet been proclaimed. Let us hope the Prime Minister will not take a cue from his Conservative colleague in New Brunswick, and fail to follow through on his promise in the Throne Speech.
It is my understanding that the freedom of information legislation proposed in the Speech from the Throne stems directly from the government's perception that the process of government needs to be opened up. I believe that perspective is accurate. It is vitally important that we bring government at all levels, federal, provincial, and municipal, closer to the people. It is important because, as the hon. member opposite who just spoke pointed out, there is a great gulf fixed at the present time between people and their elected representatives.
A recent study conducted by a Carleton University professor has revealed that the majority of Canadians surveyed do not trust politicians, do not respect politicians, and do not even like politicians. The public perception of politicians is that they care more about themselves than about the people they are elected to represent; that they are out for themselves; out to line their own pockets-out to lunch. So the government is to be commended if it intends to do something about that aliena-
October 16, 1979

tion. 1 say "if' because actions speak louder than words. It is fine to say that "we are going to open up government and listen to people more, that we are going to be a government that seeks consensus rather than confrontation." Those are fine sentiments, but fine sentiments betrayed by deeds.
If the government were serious about its sentiments, it would not be moving in the direction it is moving with Petro-Canada. If the government were serious about restoring the process of government to the people of this country, Petro-Canada would be retained as it stands. According to a recent Gallup poll, 75 per cent of Canadians say that the federal oil company should keep exploring for gas and oil, 57 per cent say it should be involved in buying oil from other countries, and 54 per cent feel it should be retailing oil and gas. A Gallup poll in July found that Canadians opposed selling Petro-Canada to the private sector two to one, or 48 per cent to 22 per cent. A majority of Canadians want to keep Petro-Canada as it is. Is the government not listening to this majority? If there ever was a misguided, misdirected, ill-conceived, and unfortunate policy, it has to be this government's policy on Petro-Canada.
Petro-Canada was established by a Liberal government to secure Canada's future energy supplies. Since it was set up it has done a great deal to achieve that end. It has stimulated exploration for oil and gas throughout Canada-in many cases entering into partnership with other oil companies-to ensure that exploration takes place which might not have been undertaken at all had the multinationals been left to themselves.
Petro-Canada is our very own national oil company. Despite what the government would have us believe, it is owned one hundred per cent by Canadians. Every Canadian citizen already has a share, already has a stake in Petro-Canada. It is our protection against the giant multinationals that care more about profit than about this country.
Petro-Canada works. It is the great Canadian success story.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, I think we should note that reaction. This is a great day-the deaf hear and the dumb speak!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Francis McCauley: The government would end this great Canadian success story. Just last night the report of the task force on Petro-Canada was made public. If the government follows its recommendations it will destroy the national mandate of that corporation. Why would it do that? Who knows?
We know for sure that this government is not responding to some great feeling on the part of the Canadian public. In fact, just the opposite is true. Canadians support Petro-Canada as it is. Canadians take pride in the company and want to see it continue its work. Canadians do not want to see it chopped up, carved up to become some miniature Canadian Exxon or Sunoco.
The Address-Mr. McCauley
What reason can there be for the government's action? Well, if you read the report there does not seem to be any reason other than a dogmatic, inflexible desire to return to the antediluvian days of laissez faire capitalism. The report argues that the government should restrict itself purely to designing a public policy framework, leaving the actual operation to private companies. Would this government say the same of hydro? Would it say the same of the building of highways? Would it say the same of education? Of course not, and it should not say that of Petro-Canada. The work that Petro-Canada is involved in is every bit as essential as the building of roads, the provision of electricity, or the provision of education. This country needs energy to heat homes, to power industries, to keep the wheels of society turning. It is the one absolutely essential resource and, as such, it is desirable that government have every possible instrument at its disposal through which it can protect this essential resource.
If the government does not want to involve itself directly in petroleum operations, then what does the government want? We do not know the answer to that question. The answer to that question is difficult to ascertain. The task force says the government policy will be accomplished through the advocacy of fiscal regimes, appropriate regulations and incentives, as well as financial support. What that means in plain and simple English is more give-aways to an already over-fat oil industry. Not only does the taxpayer lose the profit from Petro-Canada but, in future, the instrument the Tories will use to effect their policy will be those tired old devices of corporate handouts and taxpayer give-aways. Surely, there is a better way.
There is more that is defective in the thinking of the government. The task force argues that there is confusion and uncertainty about Petro-Canada's goals and objectives. I suggest that the uncertainty and confusion exist in the mind of the task force itself.


Duncan M. Beattie: Have you read the report?


Gary Francis McCauley: No, and I do not think the task force has either.
I wonder whether the task force members bothered to read the act establishing Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was created to secure our energy future. There is no uncertainty about its goals-its single purpose is to protect all Canadians. If anything, it has been too successful in this goal, for Petro-Canada has demonstrated that it is possible to serve the national objective and still make a profit. Would the Tories be so interested in privatizing Petro-Canada if it were not making a profit?
The Tory policy on Petro-Canada is fraught with many contradictions. For example, the task force suggests that the new privatized company will operate much more efficiently because it will have only one goal, to make profits for it shareholders. And yet, in recommending a division of assets, the task force requires the privatized company to maintain a reduced interest in the expensive and risky frontier exploration

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. McCauley
operations. The task force members seem to want to have their cake and eat it too, arguing on the one hand that management will be free to make decisions motivated solely by profit, while on the other hand burdening this "profit making" company with potential losses.
And what about the actual process of privatization? If the government decides to "BCRIC" Petro-Canada, perhaps we should look at the share distribution of BCRIC itself. In that process, two million of the 12 million shares offered free to B.C. residents went unclaimed. Is it not likely that the same thing will happen with Petro-Canada if it is "BCRIC'd"? Is it not likely that many people, unaware of the method of claiming their shares, not used to this kind of offering or knowing little or nothing about the stock market, will lose out on their shares in Petro-Canada? What will the government do for them?
In the end only one conclusion is possible: this government committed itself to a policy that seemed good when it was involved in an election campaign. People thought they could get some votes with it. Now this government is pointlessly sticking to a silly policy, a policy which makes no sense and which is, in a word, stupid. If the government were really serious about listening to Canadians, it would leave Petro-Canada alone.
If the government were really serious about listening to people, if the government really cared about people, it would not be systematically throwing them out of work as it is doing in my riding of Moncton. In the past two weeks, Mr. Speaker, 35 to 50 of my constituents have been laid off from the Department of Transport in Moncton. I am told this is only the thin edge of the wedge, that this 2 per cent cutback will be increased to a 10 per cent cutback in the very near future. In other words, this is just the beginning. The jobs being eliminated are not statistics, not figures on a balance sheet designed to make the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) look good, or to justify his nickname of "the Slasher." The lost jobs represent people, fathers and mothers, whose sense of selfworth that comes from gainful employment has been callously pulled out from underneath them. What will they say to their children when Christmas comes?
If the government really cared about people, little people, ordinary Canadians, would it be flirting with the Premier of Alberta, professing undying love in the form of increasing prices for oil by at least $4 a barrel next year? Such an increase will add at least 12 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline or heating oil and will strike hardest and most directly at the consumers in Atlantic Canada. These are consumers, Mr. Speaker who have no choice but to drive their own cars. We do not have access to systems of mass transportation in Petitcodiac and Salisbury, New Brunswick. Atlantic Canadian consumers have no choice but to heat their homes with oil because cheaper natural gas is not available. Does the government care? I think not.
I think of one of my constituents in Moncton who, after five years with the Department of Transport, is now out of a job, kicked out because of the policies of this government. Without

a job he will have to pay more money for gas and oil in the coming year. Will he think the government cares? I think not.
Besides its lack of care and concern for ordinary Canadians, I question this government's care and concern for Canada. If this government is intent on opening up the process of government to Canadians, should it not also be opening up Canada itself to Canadians?
The Prime Minister has a different vision of Canada. He is fond of using the phrase "community of communities". It is a nice phrase, Mr. Speaker, a catchy phrase, a comforting phrase, and I am sure on the Prime Minister's part, a sincere phrase. I do not question the Prime Minister's sincerity. I just question his wisdom. What does the phrase mean in practice? How is "community of communities" translated into action? It seems to focus more on small "c" communities than on the big "c" community of Canada. The Prime Minister seems to think that by making the provinces stronger he will, in some strange mysterious way, make Canada greater. Curious logic, Mr. Speaker.
It is somewhat like the father of a large family giving all his children $50,000 each, setting them up in competing businesses, and then expecting that situation to strengthen the family somehow. It does not make much sense.
The Prime Minister is telling us that the old days of federal-provincial tensions are over, that confrontation is to be replaced by conciliation, that demands and commands are to be replaced by jovial consensus. His government will consult with the provinces. He will talk to the premiers; he will have dialogue with the provinces. This is another example, Mr. Speaker, of noble sentiments not matched by deeds. Isn't it curious that this man who promises to do all these things with the provinces has nothing to say to the province of Quebec at this crucial time in its history? His philosophy with regard to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, seems to be benign neglect-perhaps if we just pretend that it is not there, it will quietly go away. I wonder what the people of Quebec think about their federal government on that issue.
The Prime Minister's theory of federal-provincial relations will not heal the regional sickness that afflicts us. It will only make it worse, because the Prime Minister is ignoring a fundamental fact of this country, that federal-provincial antagonisms are not political, not Liberals versus Conservatives, or Social Credit versus Conservatives, or NDP versus Liberals, or whatever. Federal-provincial antagonisms stem from the basic fact that there are conflicting interests in any federal-provincial system. There are two ways to deal with that kind of conflict, that kind of basic institutionalized conflict. One way is to appeal to idealism, the spirit of loyalty to one's country. It is to present the big picture, the forest instead of all the little trees.
The other way is to appeal to some baser instincts, the spirit of selfishness, the instinct of "me first, you last", greed when it comes to sharing the natural resources that mother nature has arbitrarily assigned to some parts of this country and not to others.
October 16, 1979

I fear for my country because 1 see this government taking this latter course. I do not believe for a moment that the people of Canada are going to be happy with this, because we are a great people, an idealistic people, an altruistic people, and we will not stand idly by when governments and politicians appeal to what is worst in us instead of to what is best in us.
I have just returned from Alberta and Saskatchewan. I have spoken with ordinary Canadians there. The people of the west love this country. They think it is the greatest country in the world. I share that conviction with them.


An hon. Member:: So do 1.


Gary Francis McCauley: 1 am pleased to hear someone else does too. They are not going to take kindly to a government that appeals to what is worst in them. Already they are in revolt. In Prince Albert, the seat formerly held by John Diefenbaker, all signs point to a government defeat. Mr. Diefenbaker was immensely popular in Prince Albert, Mr. Speaker, but his party is not, and is becoming even less so as each day passes.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to support this government when it is right. It is my responsibility to be open-minded and fair, and I take that responsibility seriously. But at the same time it is my responsibility, as it is the responsibility of every member of this House, no matter what side he sits on, to speak out forcefully and strongly against policies that pit Canadians against each other on the basis of economic wealth and economic resources.
All of us have a duty to speak out strongly and forcefully against policies that encourage regionalism, that feed the prejudice of separation, that fan the fires of division in this country. All of us, each and every member of Parliament, have a duty to speak out against government policies that reveal a lack of compassion, a lack of understanding, a lack of caring. All of us have a responsibility to speak out strongly against policies that have more to do with some kind of abstract dogma than they have to do with flesh and blood, the hopes and dreams of the ordinary working people of this country. That is the enterprise that we should all be engaged in, Mr. Speaker, and I invite all members of this House to join me in that enterprise, to support what is right, but to speak out strongy and forcefully against what is wrong.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand before you tonight as the new member for Lethbridge-Foothills. I believe that the role of a member of parliament is an important role in our Canadian society. As members we have exceptional rights, immunities and privileges. We also have major responsibilities.
Like many other members, I am in public life because I sense that Canada and Canadian people are at a low ebb, at a crisis of identity, at a point where we doubt our own abilities, institutions and future. We are questioning the basic values we hold dear. We are questioning the value of our basic institutions, be it church, government or marriage. We are at a time
The Address-Mr. Thacker
in history that can best be described as an interface between the values of past generations and future generations.
I have no doubt whatsoever as to the capacity of Canadians not only to survive this crisis of confidence, but to emerge with renewed vigour and direction. I am convinced that Parliament is the major institution that can focus our collective Canadian consciousness, that can put into place and motion the proper processes to solve our social and economic problems. It is Parliament that can set the tone of public attitudes. Parliament must protect individual rights, private ownership of property, and the fundamental freedoms. It is here in this House over the next few months and years that the role of government, the role of private enterprise, and the role of the individual citizen will be decided. I sincerely hope that we, as individual members, make decisions from the point of view that Canada will last for thousands of years. If we do, the future generations will be able to say we were wise.
Lethbridge-Foothills consists of the southwest corner of Alberta and has a population of about 90,000 people. Its geography varies from the beautiful Rocky Mountains through the foothills and out to the wide prairie. Our commercial enterprises range from tourism in the mountains, together with coal mining, to gas production and ranching in the foothills, to dry land and irrigation farming on the prairies. Located at convenient places throughout the constituency are about 20 communities which act as service centres for the surrounding farmers and ranchers. Agriculture and agricultural processing are our main source of wealth.
In our mountains we have millions of tons of low sulphur coal which is the real solution to the dreaded acid rain currently devastating our lakes in central Canada. Under our prairie, at a depth of 200 to 400 feet, lies a seam of thermal coal about six feet thick which is the long-term solution to Canada's energy supply. We have water for irrigation which is the short and long-term solution to the world's food crisis. In short, we have abundant resources.
The city of Lethbridge has close ties with confederation and its events. In order to build and operate the CPR, a supply of coal was needed. Elliot T. Galt, the son of Sir Alexander Galt, one of the Fathers of Confederation, found that coal at a place called Coal Banks, where Nick Sheran was supplying coal to Fort Macleod and Fort Benton. Coal Banks is now the thriving city of Lethbridge, with 52,000 citizens. It has the Centennial University of Lethbridge which offers a baccalaureate degree in arts, science, and education. Members will recall that Fort Macleod was the first fort established by the North West Mounted Police after a gruelling march westward during the summer of 1874.
What I really want to explain about Lethbridge-Foothills is its people. The people of Lethbridge-Foothills are what makes it great and my job so interesting and worth while. Our people are multicultural, with many organized and active groups throughout the riding. With the exception of our native people who I will mention shortly, we are all immigrants within the last four to five generations. We are in Lethbridge-Foothills either because of active hostility in other lands or because our

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Thacker
ancestors wanted a better life for us-a chance of opportunity and freedom to work, save, and raise a family. For example, we have a large Mormon community which was viciously persecuted in the United States and who brought to Leth-bridge-Foothills their unique skills of irrigation and strong family and church ties. We have a large group of Mennonite people who also came to escape religious persecution. To them we look for and receive humanity and charity which is unparalleled. Their reaction to the "boat people" crisis is so typical.
We have a large Flutterite community that choose to farm communally and to look after their own people. Different they are, but they are very valuable to our farm community. We have a large community of citizens from The Netherlands. They bring skills to farming and trades which have permitted the whole area to grow and become prosperous. They too bring a deep belief in family life. We have Italian, Ukrainian, Polish, Hungarian, Scottish, Irish, Japanese, Chinese and all other communities. All are proud of their own identity, but are subject to the Romeo and Juliet syndrome with the result that we are all becoming much more closely related. We have about 6,000 Blood Band Indians living on the largest Indian reserve in Canada. They are on the verge of a cultural and economic flowering that will grow geometrically over the next generations. They are educating their young, and are positive about their role and identity in Canada.
I could talk on for hours about my constituents and riding, but suffice it to say that we are a serious people, dedicated, hard working, confident, and deeply religious. We are still close to the soil and, therefore, the heartbeat of nature, with its tune of rugged independence. We are in Canada because it was a land of opportunity and hope. It still can be if we, as members, do our job well.
There are many topics 1 would like to speak about. I would like to tell the House of the devastating effect the capital gains tax is having on our farmers and small businessmen. I would like to speak on the belief honestly held by most people that Parliament does not respond to their wishes. Daily I hear from and read about citizens who are aggrieved, upset and angry about metric conversion, gun control, abortion, and capital punishment. Parliament must respond, and I am delighted with the government's plan to reorganize Parliament so that private members' bills shall come to a vote. I will speak on each one as it arises. Today, though, I want to speak briefly on three major topics-Quebec, Ontario, and our philosophy of government.
With respect to Quebec 1 can say that the vast majority of my constituents hold warm feelings of real friendship toward the people of that province. We are excited that they have broken out of the mold which restricted and blocked their cultural and economic development. We are delighted with their enthusiasm for life, language, and culture. We know they group us in the west together with all other Anglophones, but I want to say frankly and plainly that the people of my riding

are as different from the people of Ontario as are the people of Quebec.
We believe the people of Quebec can grow and develop within Canada just as we can in Alberta. We are proud of that aspect of our life which is Canadian-the strong areas helping the weak in this generation because the situation might be reversed in the next generation. We are proud of our record as peacekeepers, of our reputation as a food basket for so much of the world, as a home for refugees, a country where diversity is valued, where changes are made through political evolution rather than revolution. At the same time we are proud of our unique Alberta experience-of our openness, our belief in the value of education, our diverse cultural and ethnic groupings, our fundamental belief in religion, family, and individual initiative. We want the people of Quebec to share the joys and tears of being Canadian while at the same time retaining their provincial uniqueness.
On one issue we in the west are united. We do not accept the concept of sovereignty association if by "sovereignty" the PQ government means total independence, as if it were a separate country, and if by "association" it means retention of equalization and high tariffs. We in the west feel we have contributed much to Canada through selling our raw products to the east at cheap world prices while buying eastern manufactured goods at tariff-protected prices. We need and want, and, indeed, all we ask is a commitment to the Canadian experiment which can continue to grow and evolve to meet the needs of future generations.
If I might be permitted a completely personal view, I am convinced that the prime minister of Quebec and his party are still reacting to pressures and injustices of 25 years ago when they were young. But those pressures and injustices have largely disappeared and those which remain can be completely resolved by open, frank, and friendly discussion with the federal government and the governments of the other provinces. Clearly, we have more in common than we have in difference. Mr. Speaker, from the depths of our hearts we want the people of Quebec to willingly and enthusiastically remain in Canada.
With respect to Ontario, Alberta is most upset with the stance of that province vis-a-vis our oil resources. Alberta has produced approximately 11 billion barrels of conventional crude and has only six billion barrels left. We need the world price for this oil so as to finance our ideas and dreams for the future. We believe that in the past, confederation and federal policies have largely been shaped to pour wealth and strength into Ontario. This was no doubt a correct policy for its time and place, but we are now ready, willing and able to contribute more to Canada than raw resources.
As I said earlier, people in the west are as different from the people of Ontario as are the people of Quebec. We have a different background. We are multicultural in our attitude. We have been tested by pioneering a new land and outliving the depression, and have met the test. Members need only read the history of the depression in the west where three out of every four farmers had to give up and leave the land. There
October 16, 1979

were no major assistance projects to keep us on our farms and many of our parents and grandparents had to leave them. That experience is burned into our memory. We do not ever want to face such a situation again, and we regard our oil resources as being insurance against such disaster. We see Ontario's plan that our oil should continue to be sold at less than world market price to be a rape of our constitutional ownership and the virtual theft of our money.
Hon. members need to understand that Alberta's heritage trust fund should really be $20 billion rather than the $5 billion it is. Albertans have generously, and without complaint, contributed $15 billion toward the domestic price of oil, primarily to the benefit of Ontario. We do not accept the proposition that we are either greedy or selfish.
With respect to our philosophy of government my thesis is short and simple. The Canadian people must now decide where and how power is exercised in this country. By power 1 mean political and economic power. On one matter there should be no doubt. Power is always exercised by some group or person in every society. Decisions must be made and they are made; the question is, by whom? History shows that political power was exercised in the past by a very few male citizens with land. This has now changed to the point at which provision has been made for universal adult suffrage for both males and females. The process has been to spread out political power among people individually. 1 believe this to be good and wise.
With regard to economic power, however, the issue has not been settled. On the one hand there are the Liberal and New Democratic parties which believe that the means of production, and, by extension, power, should be nationalized, that is, owned by government with decisions being made by the cabinet. We in the Conservative party, on the other hand, are committed to returning economic power to individual citizens. We believe that millions of individual decisions by individual property owners, by individual shareholders, by individual business operators are much superior to decisions by one government, one cabinet, or one prime minister. In the past ownership of land was power. Today, ownership of shares is power.
The Canadian people are at a continental divide, a watershed; we can flow to the side of government ownership in which we all become employees, or we can flow to the side of individual ownership and control. We are not without modern-day examples of the way other countries have gone on this issue and how their citizens have been affected. Witness Russia, for example. In that country one sees the extreme of nationalization since all means of production are owned by the state. But decisions do get made-and by whom? By a small party of ultra socialists. But what of individual citizens? Would anyone in Canada want to trade places with them?
Take the example of Great Britain. Since the Second World War socialist governments have nationalized coal, gas, steel, electricity, railways, docks, waterways, and communications. They have taken over huge companies such as Leyland and Rolls Royce. In short, they have done exactly what the Liberals and the New Democrats want to do here in Canada. 1 ask
The Address-Mr. M. Dionne
you, Mr. Speaker, are the individual citizens of Britain better off for all this nationalization? Is there freedom and opportunity there for an ambitious person to build a better life for himself or herself? The answer is clear. It is no, and they are emigrating by the thousands.
Mr. Speaker, over the last ten years during the Liberal-NDP love affair, Canada endured a greater growth of centralized government bureaucracy and power than in any other period. The growth of Crown corporations, over 200 of them since 1970-in short, government in the business and personal lives of people-has been enormous. Government regulations and red tape are totally stifling the creative, innovative part of our society. We are seeing in Canada the breakdown of control mechanisms which worked when economic decision-making was spread among millions of people.
Government is now an active participant in the market place rather than a regulator for the public good. Why do the Liberals and the NDP so fear Canadians that they want government ownership? What happens when government owns a business or controls a Crown corporation? Simply this: political expediency overrides the clear, correct and sound decisions which must be made about investment in new plant, market development and labour relations. What does government do when the business is failing? It pours in people's tax money. It gives preferential treatment and privilege in direct competition with private people who are trying to do the same job. This is a truth which applies whether the government is PC, NDP or Liberal. This is precisely what happened with Petro-Canada and with many Crown corporations.
The Progressive Conservative Party and the government have really adopted the position of the "classical liberals". Thank heaven we have. I am proud to carry the banner offering individuals a chance to work hard and to build a better future for themselves and their descendants.
If I may be permitted another personal comment, my grandfather did not crawl out of a mine in England at age 24, having spent ten long years working underground and then giving the rest of his life and my grandmother's to pioneering in Alberta, followed by my father and mother, only to find those gains wiped out by a socialist government with confiscatory tax policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I will not let their dreams fail, and I call on other hon. members to join the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and this government in returning Canada to a place of opportunity, spirit, growth and good will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having invited me to speak during the debate on the throne speech. As the new member for the constituency of Chicouti-

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. M. Dionne
mi, it is with pride and humility that I speak for the first time in the House. I therefore take this opportunity to say that I intend to defend as vigorously as possible the interests of my constituents and fellow countrymen and more especially the underprivileged and day labourers.
I also take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, the former member for Chicoutimi, Mr. Paul Langlois. He knew how to represent his constituents and how to defend the interests of his fellow citizens. In addition, he played an important role as chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; as such he won the esteem of all his colleagues. On behalf of the people of Chicoutimi, I thank him for the work he performed and I wish him every success in his new career.
Allow me also to congratulate the Speaker on his second election to the presidency of our assembly and to commend the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and all hon. members who have already taken part in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have certainly noticed that a rather long interval has elapsed between the dissolution of the House last March and the opening of the new parliament on October 9. We recall that the hon. Mr. Trudeau had said that if he were re-elected he would open the new parliament in the middle of June. I concede that the party which has formed the new government is back from a 16-year walk in the desert. However, after listening to that sad little speech of 20 minutes in which the new government presented its so-called new policies, I had to curb my appetite. During the campaign and during the five-month vacation it granted itself, the new government kept announcing that it had finally found the solution to all our problems.
The day after the election, the increase in the inflation rate, in the interest rate and in the unemployment rate were nothing but bad souvenirs.
The day after the election, the government asked us to wait another while. To look serious, they are going to set up a timetable and feed us a catalogue of forecasts with figures-a matter of looking scientific. The big night will take place within three years, perhaps four, unless it is next spring when the people will be fed up with this government of sleepy-heads. The least we can say is that this government is showing disconcerting naivete and does not realize that Canada is facing challenges both internally and now externally, and that those challenges are going to be with us for a long time. Internally, a provincial government is going to hold a referendum. That provincial government will be urging its citizens to separate from the rest of Canada. That brutal fact has been buried under a ton of silence. One can only interpret this serious omission as being indicative of the policy of non-confrontation being pursued by this government. For my part, it is irresponsible.

Externally, this country is facing the challenges of a world dominated by uncertainty, monetary and financial conditions where the Bank of Canada raised its discount rate to 13 per cent the very day Parliament opened, which must be viewed as a most disturbing sign. Second, the world is going through a period of slower growth. That fact seems to have escaped this government. That is part of its new philosophy. This government thinks it is acting when it is not doing anything. So, it is with apprehension and fear that we see such a government take over.
Mr. Speaker, I believe a true government would have introduced an industrial strategy. For example, in my riding, an industry like Alcan exports nearly all its production of aluminum bars to foreign markets. Yet, that aluminum plant is located near the biggest power dam in the world and that power is being sold at very competitive rates. That is an advantage neither the United States nor Europe nor Japan have. How is it that we export so little in terms of finished aluminum products? It is not a transportation problem because there is a deep water port close by in what is called the Saguenay Fjord. For this government, spending is synonymous with waste. I feel that if waste must be fought, one must not confuse waste and capital expenditures that have such important effects on a regional or even national economy.
Private interests are now investing some $400 million in the aluminum industry of our region which is home to the largest aluminum factory in the world. Such multinational corporations as General Motors will start building aluminum engines. Why does the government not set up a scheme to encourage small and medium size business? If it did, its efforts would support those of the private sector. It has been found that in Japan, especially in the automobile industry, multinationals co-operate with small and medium size firms, which function as subcontractors. Why does the government not encourage our small and medium size enterprises to play a similar part? This would help reduce our trade balance deficit and create jobs in a region where unemployment remains a major problem.
What about agriculture? The government does not even mention that sector of our economy in the document where it sets forth its policies, perhaps as if it is not interested at all. I am worried about such an approach. However, Canadian farmers can rely on us. We will certainly remind the government that they exist. As a matter of fact, agriculture is the industry with the highest level of productivity, thanks to the encouraging policies of the previous administration.
The new government is guilty of serious negligence if it does not take any interest in Canadian farmers. However, let us look at some of the others schematic proposals contained in the Speech from the Throne.
October 16, 1979

First, what are we to think of the announcement of cuts in social services and the public service and the accelerated increase in the price of energy, to name only a few? What is surprising is that these measures were announced before the opening of Parliament. This is even more startling if we recall that the new Prime Minister never missed an opportunity to remind the previous government that its new policies should be announced in Parliament before being announced directly by the information media. Why is the new government not practising what it preached for so long? We are now in a situation where ministers have made public fantastic statements which were later confirmed or denied publicly by the Prime Minister. Yet, no representative of the Canadian people, in other words no member of Parliament was able to learn the position of the government by any other means than by listening to news reports since Parliament had not yet been convened.
We must admit that this is a first in the history of Canadian Parliaments. It is very disturbing to realize that this policy change has been brought about by a party that had promised repeatedly that it would re-establish the supremacy of Parliament. In view of the actions of this government, I am therefore faced with the obligation to protest strongly about its off-hand treatment of the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, we are not the only ones to have suffered the arrogance of this new government. What about the way certain senior public servants have been treated?
Who will defend the 60,000 public servants involved, who include some who have been with the government for 20 and even 30 years? They include family men and women, as well as young and old employees who are living a dramatic experience. The government has suddenly told them that they are completely useless in our society and condemned them to become the laughing stock of their family and relatives. I shall not even mention the financial difficulties, the broken dreams and the despair of those Canadians. Yet, did the new Prime Minister not solemnly promise to put Canada back to work? The government must make an effort to create jobs for those public servants.
On the other hand, the new government continues to hire new people. I have heard that there is a lady in the office of the Prime Minister who does only that. She is in charge of human relations, while 60,000 civil servants are unfortunately denied that type of consideration. To be hard-hearted has become the new virtue of that regime. That is its trademark. Did the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) not say that he would be hard?
What about the statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) to a social club on October 4 last? Is that the leader of the Canadian diplomatic corps who wonders out loud what advantages Canada derives from its participation in certain aid programs, since our trade with some countries is negligible? We have no colonialist past, nothing to feel guilty about, so we can let them starve to death,
The Address-Mr. M. Dionne
those poor souls: our conscience is clear. Is that our new aid policy for the Third World countries? Mr. Speaker, if I have dwelled on the subject of these unhappy circumstances, it is because I fear that Canadians might be conditioned to harden their hearts, to accept the fact that we have nothing in common with the poor of the Third World. Then it will be all the more easy to accept that Canadians in turn be compelled to accept heavy personal sacrifices for the sake of a balanced budget because that is what they are trying to shove down our throats.
Since when are 60,000 Canadians the only ones responsible for an unbalanced budget? Does a balanced budget not flow from more intense economic activity, from an effort in the field of exports or from a display of imagination? Yet, when you have a Prime Minister who antagonizes the whole Arab world because he is the only one who stubbornly wants to move an embassy, it is no wonder if contracts are lost. As a result, each one of us is impoverished. Who is going to foot the bill for this loss of revenue? Will it be the public servants again?
Isn't the lack of coherence of the cabinet over the sale of the Candu reactor-and I will not quote you the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-the reason why we lost that sale in Argentina? Who is going to pay for this loss of income? Again, a bunch of civil servants?
The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) candidly tells us that he will have to reduce the funds earmarked for the promotion of Canadian products sales in Latin America because of budget cuts. Is there a more anti-economic action than that one? Who will pay for the loss of revenue resulting from that irresponsible policy? How many public servants in the next tumbrel? There is never any tumbrel for the members of this government, Mr. Speaker.
In the area of economic measures, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has announced his intention to get rid of many Crown corporations. That puts in the deepest state of anxiety and confusion those corporations' employees as well as the Canadian public. What reasons, what fever, what rage are driving this government to wanting to get rid of Canadian corporations such as Petro-Canada, Canadair or de Havilland? Are they showing a deficit? In most cases, the answer is no; on the contrary they are showing substantial benefits. Are they competing unfairly with the private sector? Again, the answer is no, and we might add that they are meeting alone the competition of foreign multinationals. Will this giving away of Crown corporations to the private sector help reduce the number of public servants? The answer is no because the employees of those companies are not considered as civil servants under the Public Service Employment Act. There is no mention of the fact that businesses such as Canadair and de Havilland were pioneers in aeronautics. Those operations are in Quebec, in a sector of high technology, and they enable our Canadian research workers to vie in ingenuity with those of other countries.

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mr. Elzinga
Finally, it is not sure that the executives and research workers who are working now in those businesses will agree to stay with the prospective buyers of those companies. Worse still, should they fall in the hands of multinationals, the first step which would be taken by those industrial giants would be to close the laboratories and rule out any expenditure for research and development in Canada. So, we would have turned the page on everything which could be a breakthrough in a promising sector for Canada, and for Quebec in particular.
Similarly, we do not understand why it is a shame for the federal government to have a presence in the industrial world through nationalized businesses. Are the provinces not doing the same thing, provinces under Conservative governments such as Alberta and Ontario? Is the present government afraid of its responsibilities? Is it afraid of being a real government?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am actually pleading a case today. In fact, the official opposition has a duty to bring to light the contradictory actions of this government. For example, the new government thinks that Canadians have no assets in this country. Nothing is farther from the truth. Crown corporations act in the interest of Canada and Canadians. The new government wants to be attentive to the needs of the people, yet it refuses to listen to the arguments of the opposition parties as well as to the critics of Progressive Conservative members showing that Canadians are opposed to some government policies. Finally, all the electoral gibberish about promises for a better future, words such as "potential", phrases such as "to have interest in Canada" are but empty cliches and slogans. This government, after coming before Parliament, seems to have prematurely aged. That is understandable since we all know the government wastes its strength and its energy in purposeless activities as it does not know where it is going. The lack of a sense of direction and stubbornness are the two pillars of this new government. In my view that is not a very good omen for the future of Canadians.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend the traditional congratulations to the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) for their superb presentations in moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Also 1 should like to congratulate Mr. Speaker on his appointment to that honoured position. I share with the House the outstanding contribution Your Honour made during the time I have been in the House of Commons since 1974, and the pleasure I have had working with you.
When one reviews the Speech from the Throne one finds that many positive areas have been advocated and proposed, many important areas. We have received a certain amount of criticism from the opposition in regard to the lack of statements respecting the economy, but in the Speech from the

Throne we find that the government is making a commitment to better control federal government expenditures. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) introduced a new expenditure management system so that strict limits will fall upon individual ministers rather than simply on the shoulders of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). Also we see that there will be parliamentary control in regard to the accountability of Crown corporations and that their spending habits will be scrutinized. We will have regular opportunities as parliamentarians to judge whether various government programs and agencies need to continue, or if they need to be altered at all by the implementation of sunset legislation.
It is a grand feat in itself when the federal government attempts to tackle the waste in government spending which has gone on for many years. In the area of parliamentary reform we see that the House of Commons will have its powers strengthened. Parliamentary committees will be much more effective. The average backbench member of parliament, if we can convince House leaders opposite, will have more of a role to play in discussing particular concerns of keen interest to constituents back home.
Also I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). One cannot help but be impressed with the positive action he has taken in the short period of time he has been the federal Minister of Transport. In my opinion one of the better appointments is the one that the federal minister made regarding the grain co-ordinator, Dr. Horner from Barrhead, Alberta. Not only was he a well-respected politician in the House, but also he was the deputy premier of the province of Alberta. He is an individual who is greatly respected across the country and an individual who can grasp our transportation difficulties.
We have received commitments from three provinces to participate in hopper car purchases so that we can increase the capacity of grain movement. Also we have a commitment from the Minister of Transport that the facilities at the Prince Rupert terminal will be developed to a greater extent. One cannot help but admire the man for giving a commitment that within six years our grain transportation system will handle an additional 50 per cent of grain.
The national government has two basic responsibilities. We have an obligation to run the federal government competently, and to lead the nation to realistic goals. We have a national responsibility to do so honestly. If we as a national government could say to Canadians that we have dealt with the issues honestly, I think we could pride ourselves in that. That is a commitment of this government. We wish to restore faith and confidence in our institutions. The Prime Minister has taken action in this direction. One cannot help but admit that when one does not know the answers, one should be willing to admit that fact. We will make mistakes, but I am hopeful we on this side will be big enough to admit to those mistakes.
The Prime Minister has introduced conflict of interest guidelines for cabinet ministers. Already we have begun to live up to a number of campaign promises, the key one being mortgage deductibility. In the very near future we will see in
October 16, 1979

the House freedom of information legislation whereby the average Canadian citizen will have an opportunity to have a broader insight into the happenings of the federal government. There is a large task ahead of us to restore faith and trust in our federal institutions. The true test of any government is not how popular it is with the powerful, but how honestly it deals with the many individuals who depend upon it.
In the tradition I have established since becoming a member, I shall be very brief. With the tabling of the task force report on Petro-Canada, I think it is important to make a few comments. There is no doubt on either side of the House as to the need for a national oil company owned by Canadians. The dispute comes in as to whether it should have government ownership or whether it should have citizen participation. 1 campaigned on citizen participation in the petroleum company of Canada, and I wish to share with the House a portion of the release I issued during the election campaign. It reads as follows:
It is important that Canadians have an opportunity to participate directly in the development of our national resources and, because of this, we have advocated that individual Canadians have an opportunity for direct ownership in the Petroleum Co. of Canada. This would be accomplished by offering only to Canadian citizens shares in the Petroleum Co. of Canada. It is advisable also that limits be placed on the number that one can own so that a large block is not purchased by a large multinational company, and that individual Canadians themselves are able to purchase them.
1 was delighted to see that the task force report set limits on the amount of ownership that one could have. I believe for individuals they placed it at 1 per cent, and for companies at 2 per cent.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Three per cent.


Peter Elzinga: Three per cent. I believe that many Canadians welcome the opportunity to participate directly. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) pointed out to me in a conversation several days ago, "How much pride do we as individual Canadians feel for Air Canada? If we had an opportunity to participate directly in a corporation we would feel a certain amount of pride, and we would participate in the development of that organization.
The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) pointed out in his presentation the vast differences which exist between the members opposite and the members on this side of the House. It is great to see that we have broken now in so far as our philosophical beliefs are concerned and that the NDP party and the Liberal party are on the side on which they belong, and that we and the Social Credit party are on the other. They on that side believe that they know what is best for every Canadian, and they like to dictate what should be done for the average Canadian. We on this side believe in individual initiative, and we wish that individual initiative to foster in Canada.


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


Peter Elzinga: If it were allowed, Mr. Speaker, I would share with hon. members present the contempt I feel for the individuals opposite for misleading the Canadian public on the position my government is taking on Petro-Canada. I have a magazine here which states, "Write to your member of parliament to save Petro-Canada. The Tories want to sell off this oil company to other major oil companies." What a bunch of propaganda. We wish to have citizen participation, but they are putting in the minds of people the idea that we wish to get rid of it, to disband Petro-Canada, or sell it to other oil companies.
It is obvious that the government must keep control in certain sectors, as the task force has pointed out, particularly with regard to the negotiation of any necessary state-to-state oil supply contracts, the promotion or increase of frontier exploration, and the promotion of oil sands and heavy oil research and development.
1 have one reservation with regard to the task force report, and that is the giving away of shares. Too often individuals when they receive something for nothing do not place the value on that something which it merits. I have no objection to a select number of shares being given away, but I believe the majority of these shares should be offered for sale on a limited basis to the Canadian public.


An hon. Member:: No free lunch.


Peter Elzinga: Right. As a member of parliament from Alberta, I feel I would be letting down my constituents if I did not make a few comments on the energy situation as it exists in Canada. I do so with a certain amount of reservation, but it is my conviction that we Albertans do believe very strongly in doing what is best for the national interest. It is obvious that Premier William Davis of Ontario is, frankly, opposed to the basic interests of Alberta. There is no doubt that a fundamental conflict exists between Alberta and Ontario on the distribution of power in Canada. There is no pleasure in recording that, but it is a bald reality.
Premier Davis would like to see the increasing value of Alberta oil come to Ottawa and to Ontario. He feels that Alberta is wealthy enough, that the shift of money to the west has gone far enough, and he wishes it stopped. However, when we review the record of what Alberta has contributed to the national welfare of this country, we find, because of the prices which we have taken for oil products in the last number of years, that we have contributed approximately $15 billion to the welfare of the nation as a whole. That is a very significant contribution.
One must face the fact that if the prices on oil products do not rise, the supply will run out. Our premier has stated this on many occasions. In other words, if we wish to have a long-term supply, we must pay the price, but if we do not wish any guarantees we can continue with a low price policy.
It is the position of the Alberta government that Ontario's position is a clear attempt to change the basic concepts and arrangements of confederation which left the ownership of natural resources to the provinces. What is even more objec-

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mrs. Mitchell
tionable is that their position purports to alter the ownership rights of provinces only with respect to oil and natural gas, leaving the provinces' ownership rights over other natural resources as they are now. It is obvious that we have a dilemma in Canada. Let us hope that we, as a national federal party, can draw these two conflicting views together, and I believe that we can do so.
Let me, in closing, share with hon. members the honour which 1 feel to have had the opportunity to be elected to this Thirty-first Parliament, and to share with you again, as I did in my maiden speech in 1974, my comments, that I will dedicate myself to serving the needs of all Canadians but, naturally, the majority of my interests will lie with that constituency which put me here in Ottawa. I thank my constituents for that opportunity to represent them in this House of Commons.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured tonight to stand before you as a new member in this House. 1 am very proud to be following in the tradition established by Harold Winch, who represented the great riding of Vancouver East for almost 20 years. I congratulate you, sir, on your recent appointment, and also my colleagues, particularly those who were elected for the first time.
I especially want to congratulate the nine women members who were elected to this House, and I would say to the last speaker that this does not include "the seven sisters", one of them named Esso. I am sure from my own experience that these women have worked very hard, perhaps twice as hard as our male colleagues, to be nominated and elected. As women candidates we convinced the electorate that a woman's place is in the house, House of Commons. I think, however, we still may have to convince this House.
I say this having recently completed an orientation workshop for new members, where many excellent panelists, all of them men, consistently referred to members as "he" and to spouses as she . As a result my husband is now demanding equal access to the parliamentary women's lounge! Despite those male biases, however, I want to commend the organizers of the workshops. They were very helpful to new members. Undoubtedly under present government policy there will soon be an equal number of top women civil servants to sit on such panels the next time around.
Because we are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the person case when women, were finally recognized as persons under the British North America Act, I want to raise several related questions from my impressions as a new member on the Hill.
Why, for example, Mr. Speaker, are there only male security staff, and only female servers in the parliamentary dining room? Why is there no daycare service for parents who work here? How can a woman messenger, whose take home pay is $380, support six children? Why should the staff on this Hill

not be unionized and have decent rates of pay similar to civil servants?
It seems to me that what is done on this Hill should be a model for the nation. If we are committed to equal rights for all Canadians I wonder why we are not leading the public service and public opinion by adopting an affirmative action program. Surely affirmative action and collective bargaining rights for workers are long overdue.
I want to concentrate tonight on two main topics raised in the Speech from the Throne. These topics are vitally important to the future of Canada as well as to the people of Vancouver East, my riding.
First of all, as immigration critic for the New Democratic Party I will speak to the need for a more just and fair immigration policy that will protect the rights of Canadians and that will provide adequate funding for settlement services for new Canadians.
Second, because I am told that a maiden speech may cover the waterfront, I will raise important issues related to the Speech from the Throne proposal to build an effective Canadian merchant marine.
We need a more just immigration policy that will protect the rights of every Canadian as well as every immigrant; that will provide realistic settlement services for new immigrants, and that will treat refugees fairly regardless of their country of origin. Every person in this House, except one, is either an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant. The exception, of course, is the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), who has aboriginal rights. So other members had better listen to him carefully when he speaks on self-determination.
Our history shows that Canada has grown and flourished after every major wave of newcomers. I am told that every immigrant creates 1.5 jobs. Immigrants work hard, repay many costs, bring skills, have strong family ties, and contribute richness to our culture.
I have lived for 20 years in a neighbourhood in Vancouver East that has over 18 nationalities on our two short streets. People work hard to purchase and improve their homes, to educate their children, and to improve their neighbourhoods. There is mutual respect between new and old Canadians because people know and help each other.
Why is it then, that the question of immigration and particularly of refugees, is the most emotionally charged topic on every hot line show across this country?
During times of high unemployment and economic insecurity, prejudice flares. People fear their jobs will be threatened by newcomers who may work for lower wages and longer hours. Labour feels that unions will be undermined and workers exploited. What does government do ? Instead of creating more union jobs for unemployed Canadians and refugees, instead of at least maintaining Canada Works jobs to help provide services for newcomers, the present government has cut Canada Works funds at the worst possible time. In Vancouver East funds were cut from $1.2 million to $35,000-from over 150 to a mere three jobs. Mr. Speaker, Vancouver East is an
October 16, 1979

area that has over 18 per cent unemployment. It is also the community that is hosting the majority of the boat people in British Columbia. So the poor pay again for the humanitarian gestures of the rest of us.
Many citizens, born in Canada, cannot afford decent housing and will never own a home-although they will pay taxes to subsidize mortgage tax credits for wealthy home owners. In downtown Vancouver over 2,000 poor people are on waiting lists for social housing, many of them single people and pensioners, living in cockroach infested rooms. I am sorry to say that they wait in vain because this government has no plans to build social housing. Why should they be joyful when over 600 Vietnamese refugees move into their over-crowded neighbourhood and others are offered CMEIC houses at subsidized rates? We know that it is not the refugees' fault that our government has failed Canadians.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is the immigrant and the refugee who become scapegoats, not the government. Legitimate fears grow because our government will not provide for the basic rights of Canadians to jobs, housing, and services. Prejudice based on ignorance is soon inflamed by racists. Mr. Speaker, I urge Canadians, and through you, I urge every member in this House to press the conscience of our new government to provide an antidote to this backlash. We must develop jobs and affordable housing for all Canadians- including refugees. Social housing is essential and will stimulate our economy. Tenants, too, have rights. 1 believe also that shareholders living in co-operative housing developments are deprived of the new Tory Bonanza. Tory privatization of CMHC provides no social benefits-except profits for the privateers.
I want to stress two other points relating to immigration policy. I am sorry that the hon. minister is not here tonight. Mr. Speaker, our party favours a sensible immigration policy. If we open our doors to new Canadians we must have adequate financing for settlement services. It makes no sense at all to bring hundreds of refugees into a community and expect agencies to provide extra services without adequate government funding.
In Vancouver we have a multilingual service called "Mosaic" which is the major service agency for non-English speaking people in Vancouver. This association may be forced to close down because of the ridiculous "fee for service" method of financing of the federal government. In case our colleagues across the floor have not heard of this fee for service, it was introduced by the Liberals and is being carried out by the Conservatives. It provides for no overhead costs and requires unnecessary and costly bureaucratic procedures that intimidate many people. For example, if a non-English speaking person went to Mosaic to ask the way to the post office, he would have to fill out a form saying where he came from, what he does, when he came to Canada, his telephone number, his age, and might also be required to produce documents to prove all this. The worker would then have to fill out documents in order to get paid for the service. This is ridiculous. This method of funding also does not cover the cost of service for
The Address-Mrs. Mitchell
people who do not speak English but who have been in the country for over three years. This means, of course, that many women are excluded since they have been at home raising small children and have had little opportunity to learn English.
Just as our Immigration Act discriminates against women by treating them as spouses with few rights of their own, so our federal settlement services ignore the needs of women. Immigrant women at home with small children take longer to learn English and often lead very isolated lives. They can benefit immensely from orientation programs, from ethnic home-school workers, and from training for future employment provided that babysitting is available.
The fee for service method of funding must go. Essential settlement services must be subsidized by the federal government on a regular grant system that is based on need, not on bureaucratic discrimination.
We in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, supported and prodded the government to open our doors to boat people out of common humanity and because we could not leave the burden of so many refugees to Southeast Asian countries of first asylum. But, how can the government justify the double standard that exists in our immigration policy, especially as it applies to refugees? How can Canada accept General Dang Van Quang as a permanent resident with his nefarious Vietnamese war record, while at the same time we refuse asylum to Galindo Madrid, a young political refugee who has proven that he is a responsible worker in Canada and whose life will be in danger if he is deported to Chile? Yet the decision of this government is to deport him. We also have heard this week, of the plight of six Polish refugees in Newfoundland who are being refused asylum by the Canadian government. How can we spend $117 million for boat people-and we agree with this-while we ignore the economic needs of refugees in Nicaragua, and the urgent need for economic aid in Kampo-chea? What we need is a more just, objective refugee policy based on United Nations' standards, with adequate procedures for appeal.
Many other reforms to the Immigration Act are needed. I hope the new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) will eliminate discrimination as well as including the multicultural fact of Canada, in revisions that are planned. I want to assure the minister that we will work energetically to press for reforms and revisions to the act which are essential.
Before speaking about the need for a Canadian merchant marine, 1 must mention again that last Monday a major accident occurred in Vancouver East when the Second Narrows CNR Bridge across Burrard Inlet was damaged by a Japanese freighter. As a result, there has been a serious delay in shipping grain, coal, sulphur, potash and forest products. I urge all possible government action to repair this major transportation artery quickly so that ships can once again reach bulk terminals at the eastern end of Vancouver.
I must also call attention to a precedent taking place in the Canadian Arctic. Hon. members may not be aware of this

October 16, 1979
The Address-Mrs. Mitchell
situation but it is of considerable concern to maritime unions and is a situation apparently condoned by this government. 1 refer to the issuance of work visas to foreign nationals. These foreign nationals make up the crew on the dredge "Aquarius" under charter to Dome Petroleum. This is a Dutch ship sailing in the western Arctic. While there may not be many unemployed seamen in Edmonton where these visas were issued, I know there are many in Vancouver who deserve these jobs. 1 ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration, through you, Mr. Speaker, to rescind these visas in favour of Canadians.
I want to speak now of maritime issues and the need for a Canadian merchant marine. The port of Vancouver stretches from the northern border of the Vancouver East riding framed by towering coastal mountains, which incidentally are covered by daffodils all year round! From this beautiful port ships from around the world carry our raw materials to other countries to be manufactured, and they are then sold back to us. These ships are registered under foreign flags and are manned by foreign crews and pay no harbour dues to Canada.
There are many residents of Vancouver East who work on the waterfront as longshoremen, in fishing plants, in ship repairs and related businesses. However, since waterfront industries lack stability, their jobs are sporadic and seasonal, and we all know what they are likely to get in the way of unemployment insurance with the new cutbacks for seasonal workers. Our shipyards in Vancouver East live from day to day. Employment fluctuates from about 200 to 1,500 workers, depending on available contracts for small coastal vessels. Skilled seamen who used to sail on Canadian ships and shipbuilders who worked in busy war time shipyards are retiring, and with them their skills are disappearing. Our unemployed young people are not learning these trades. If Canada had a merchant fleet there would be a steady flow of work and regular apprentice training for these Canadians. Unemployment rates would be reduced to an all time low, not only in Vancouver East but also in the maritimes.
Canada is a maritime nation bounded on three sides by the largest coastline in the world. Until the Second World War, Canada was a leading nation in the shipbuilding industry. We had a merchant marine of which we were proud. Now Switzerland and Luxembourg have bigger fleets than we have. The Liberal government deliberately destroyed this heritage after World War II. Merchant ships were sold off, and skilled seamen and shipbuilders were put out of work. In their place foreign ships were allowed to exploit our trade thereby building up huge trade deficits.
The importance of shipping Canadian cargo in Canadian ships cannot be overstated. For example, in 1977 we paid $2.5 billion in freight charges to foreign shipping countries. If Canada had had a merchant marine this money would have gone to Canadians. In effect it would have wiped out half our trade deficit for that year.
Now, as a bedtime story, I must move on to the tale of that great Canadian pioneering industry, namely, the Canadian Pacific Railway. The CPR boasts about its Canadianism as it

reaps profits with vast donations from the public treasuries, and it has done since 1880. The shipping record of Canadian Pacific Bermuda Ltd.-and 1 emphasize Bermuda-is a national disgrace. Yes, they have a modern deep sea fleet of over 30 merchant ships, but they are registered in Bermuda. Not one of these CPR ships is registered in Canada, built in a Canadian shipyard, or manned by Canadian seamen.
In 1978 the Liberal government gave CPR subsidies of over $100 million, with many more millions in tax deferrals and other corporate welfare gimmicks, to assist in this treachery against Canada. If this is what the new Conservative government calls privatization, God preserve our country from the privateers, and from the Tories too.
I hope, and the people of Canada hope, that we are entering a new era. We expect this government to act on the Darling reports and on the four or more subsequent reports that Otto Lang ignored. The time is right for major stimulation to our maritime industries in the east, in the west, and in the north where the promise of offshore resources is a challenge to us to develop new technologies for the Arctic. We welcome the throne speech that promises an effective merchant marine and we will watch closely for further details.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer this government to a plan of action that was strongly endorsed by both labour and management during recent months. This practical plan was proposed by none other than our own outstanding leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent): (1) repatriate existing Canadian owned fleets; (2) require that Canadian bottoms carry Canadian goods in Canadian waters; (3) stimulate shipbuilding with loans and grants carefully planned; (4) guarantee that future shipping of petroleum and mineral products from Arctic sources is owned, developed, built and manned by Canadians; (5) adopt the UN shipping convention rule which guarantees that at least 40 per cent of Canadian goods will be carried on Canadian ships; (6) instigate training programs for a whole new generation of maritime workers.
I look forward eagerly to this session in which I hope we will be able to solve some of these problems. I know the people of Vancouver East share my concerns.



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

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first question on an adjournment motion, I take this opportunity to
October 16, 1979

extend my congratulations on your re-election as Chairman of Committee of the Whole and to express my best wishes for a prolonged life both in the chair and as hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry. During the question period yesterday,
I stated to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) my concerns with the program of privatizing Crown corporations. Apparently the profitable corporations will have priority in the sales process, over the unprofitable ones, which will remain at the taxpayers' expense. Regretfully, I am referring for instance to Petro-Canada, which will go back to the private sector while the non-profitable part, research, development and risk ventures, will remain with the government. In the case of Cana-dair, a profitable corporation, there is also talk of liquidating and proceeding before the end of November. Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do with de Havilland in Toronto, which is still unprofitable? Are we to proceed in parallel, the profitable plant being sold while the unprofitable one will be kept as a Crown corporation? In its program of privatizing the Crown corporations, the government announced the sale of Canadair to the private sector without telling us how this would be done, what would be the criteria and within what framework the government intends to take that corporation away from its shareholders, depriving them of their right to share and participate in the profits or benefiting from the profitability experienced by this industry faced with a very promising future.
Mr. Speaker, Canadair was purchased in 1976 by the former administration at a cost of $38 million in order to ensure Canadian control over this important sector of the economy, to develop the aeronautic industry and, thereby, through the sale of its aircraft, to export on a worldwide scale the products of its technology. The Challenger, for instance, which has met with tremendous success actually represents an injection of over $700 million into the Canadian economy. Canadians took some risks in 1976 when Canadair was in a deficit position and on the verge of closing down. Today the purchase of Canadair represents the creation of more than 5,000 jobs in the Montreal metropolitan area out of which 95 per cent have gone to Quebeckers who, as a result, have developed an interest in aeronautics as evidenced by the 700-plus students registered in the school of aerotechnics at the Edouard Montpetit community college.
In 1976, out of an ailing enterprise, the Liberal government made a symbol of success which has become the pride of all Canadians and I would like especially to commend the executive team for its dynamism and the quality of its management as well as the plant workers who have also made significant efforts to ensure its success.
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are not just mere manufacturers, and if you will allow me the expression, drawers of water, because we also manufactured the CL-215 which is designed for fighting forest fires.
Adjournment Debate
But Quebeckers are now manufacturing the most modern, the most efficient twin-engine jet, which has had a phenomenal success worldwide, and they want to keep that reputation and participate in that aeronautical development. Big contracts with the Department of National Defence for a new fighter plane worth some $2,500 million will surely mean major economic fallout for Canadair, and will be added to present contracts which represent for thousands of Quebeckers well-paid jobs for about 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, our leader mentioned early in the new Parliament that the opposition would be positive. I therefore suggest that the government look seriously into the possibility of creating a single aeronautics company merging Canadair of Montreal with de Havilland of Toronto, because of the importance of the relations between the government and private enterprise, especially in that specialized sector of aeronautics, considering the fact that planes are classified by the Department of Transport of Canada, their export is controlled by the Department of External Affairs, the marketing and financing by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and military needs are ensured jointly by the Departments of National Defence, Supply and Services and even of Environment Canada, which can intervene in that co-operation between private enterprise and the government.
It seems to me that formula for joint participation by the government and private interests is a far more logical solution and, especially, more acceptable to all Canadians. If they decide to go ahead with the sale of that industry the transaction should be made within the framework of general legislation on the liquidation of Crown companies.
Mr. Speaker, the case of the Arrow aircraft was the reflection of a lack of interest from the Progressive Conservatives in the field of aeronautics, and we do not want Canadians to be reminded of that sad story. Unless they can obtain from their government official safeguards which should be provided through the development of a national policy on aeronautics, it seems to me that this privatization will be useless and that Canadians will be fooled once again by the Tories.


Mr. John Bosley (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have to congratulate you on your appointment and I do so gladly.
1 will proceed expeditiously to answer the question raised by the hon. member because 1 am sure he is anxious to hear the reply and not simply interested in making a speech. It is true, as he suggests, that Canadair Limited is one of the leading aircraft companies in the Canadian aerospace industry with integrated capabilities for design, development, production and

October 16, 1979
Adjournment Debate
marketing of complete aircraft, battlefield surveillance systems, and for specialized fabrication of major airframe assemblies for other prime aircraft manufacturers. The largest and most significant current project is the CL-600 Challenger corporate jet aircraft which offers a long-term potential for sales well in excess of $1.6 billion. Contracted sales involving non-refundable deposits now number 120. Nothing said by this government at any time has ever been intended as any suggestion that we wish to jeopardize the future of that aircraft or that company.
As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has already indicated, what we have under active consideration is the feasibility of returning ownership of Canadair to the private sector. A special task force to deal specifically with both the framework to which the hon. member refers and, in this case, the specific privatization procedure for this company, has been established to study and to make recommendations on the process of privatization and on privatization guidelines. 1 would be more than happy to refer the hon. member's suggestions to that task force.
As I finish perhaps it should be clear that the reason this company was purchased was to make sure, as the hon. member suggests, that the company would remain in Canadian hands and that the people who work for it would continue to have their jobs. It was clearly understood at the time that government ownership was seen as temporary, until the company could be returned to private sector ownership as a successful, ongoing entity with sound, long-term prospects in its business and market area. The timing and character of a sale to the private sector can be expected not to prejudice the encouraging commercial performance of Canadair which has been built up during the period of government ownership. Moreover, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicated to this House, the retention of major facilities in Quebec will be an important consideration.
Finally, I think we on this side of the House clearly reject the suggestion that merely because something has been government-owned, it ought automatically to continue to be government-owned. This is fundamental to the success of the companies themselves in the long run.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING DISPOSAL AND TRANSPORTATION OF CHEMICAL WASTES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Bird's Hill):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) for taking the time to show up tonight to respond to the elaboration of my question.
If hon. members recall, the question I asked last Friday had to do with the disposal and transport of dangerous chemical wastes. Being a rookie I made the mistake of ending my question with a specific question to which the minister replied-and I was glad he replied as he did-"Yes, and soon;" that the government would proceed with the passage of the transport of dangerous goods legislation.

However, my question was prefaced with a more general question as to what the general intentions of the government were with regard to the transport and disposal of dangerous chemical wastes. I refer to the general problem of the growing number of dangerous products in Canada, a problem which we have not had to face up to until recently because, until recently, the United States was willing to take all of our chemical wastes and dispose of them for us.
However, the United States will be a garbage can for Canada for only so long, and its authorities have indicated that there is a limit to the time that they will receive these wastes from us, so we are faced with the prospect of having to build disposal plants on our side of the border.
I was first made aware of this problem when I was on a tour with the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) regarding health care. We happened into Fort Saskatchewan, north of Edmonton, where one of these plants is being suggested.
With regard to this general problem and with regard to the philosophical commitment of the government, I would like to ask the minister whether the government intends, as a policy, to allow the disposal of chemical wastes to be handled by the private sector or the public sector. One of the things a citizens' group in Fort Saskatchewan was concerned about was that the disposal of chemical wastes would be left to the private sector and that there were no incentives, once the chemical wastes were in the hands of a private company given this responsibility, to dispose of the chemical wastes in a safe and responsible way. Certain abuses have already been brought to our attention. These abuses have been by companies which have offered to dispose of waste, and then leaked these dangerous wastes on highways from leaking trucks, and carried out various other atrocities.
So, I would like to ask the minister what the general intention and policy of the government is with regard to this problem. I know the minister takes the problem seriously. I do not see this question as an attempt to embarrass the government, but I think it important that we know now just what the intention of the government is. Is this problem to be handled through public enterprise or through private enterprise? I myself feel that the latter alternative is a dangerous one.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since this matter falls primarily within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, I am taking the liberty of responding to the hon. member's concerns.
First, let me remind the hon. member that a bill to regulate the transportation of regulated goods is in fact included in the list of some of the measures the government proposes to place before Parliament during this first session of the Thirty-first Parliament and which the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) tabled in the House, Thursday, October 11. In case the
October 16, 1979

hon. member missed this tabling of bills, this list is appended to Hansard at pages 116 and 117 of that date.
Regulations covering the packaging, handling and transportation of dangerous goods have been promulgated by a variety of federal, provincial and municipal authorities since the early part of this century. The resulting mass of often conflicting regulations, penalties, and enforcement provisions had led to confusion on the part of the distributors, carriers and manufacturers of these products and their containers. Indeed, in order to meet the needs of commerce, they have sometimes had either to ignore the rules or disguise the characteristics of the products. Attempts to enforce these conflicting standards would be exceedingly difficult and complicated, and would constitute a severe barrier to trade.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill to regulate the transportation of dangerous goods is to ensure safety in transport while facilitating trade by providing for the promulgation and enforcement of a uniform set of regulations governing the handling and transportation of dangerous goods, and establishing a joint safety program with the provinces which will ensure that compatible standards are applied across the country.
In short, the act will be designed to ensure the complete integrity of hazardous shipments, be they commodities or wastes in and across Canada.
To respond to the specific concern of the hon. member over rail traffic through Winnipeg-Birds Hill, I can assure him that federal inspectors will enforce the provisions of the proposed transportation of dangerous goods act.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-PROTECTION AGAINST OIL SPILLS IN WEST COAST WATERS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to speak to a full House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My topic tonight is the transportation of Alaskan oil. It arises from a question 1 asked in the House on October 11 of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser). The question was as follows:
What does the minister propose to do to ensure that the routing of Alaskan oil will be done in the best interests of Canada and will not endanger the west coast?
My main point tonight is that the policy followed by the present Conservative government, and indeed by the previous Liberal administration, is a disaster for British Columbia and Canada, in my opinion. What really irks me is that we are on an American timetable in this issue. Surely the minister must realize that. It is like an old movie. We did the same thing with the gas pipeline. I have spent three years of my life on the regulatory procedure for that pipeline and we speeded up the regulation to meet the American timetable. What happened? We finished our regulatory procedures but we are still waiting for the Americans to get their act together. It seems to me that now we are doing it again, we are again trying to meet the American timetable.
Adjournment Debate
I should like to give members in the House some brief facts on this matter so that it becomes a little more clear. The problem is to get Alaskan oil to the midwestern United States. There have been five proposals: first, a tanker route to Kiti-mat. That seems to be gone now. Second, a tanker route to Skagway. That seems to be gone. Third, a tanker route to Port Angeles, Washington, thence to Edmonton and thence to the American mid-west. That seems to be still there. It is the Trans Mountain proposal. Fourth, a tanker route to Low Point in Washington, near Port Angeles, and again by pipeline to the American mid-west. It is the "all-American"route. Fifth, an overland line, the Foothills line. Yesterday we heard that apparently Foothills has withdrawn its application or at least put it on the back burner. Now we are faced with an oil port on the west coast and a tanker route.
Ask any student in the city of Vancouver or in any one of the members' constituencies. They know about oil spills, about Chedabucto Bay, the Torrey Canyon incident and the present spill in Mexico. They know, and our scientists know, that there will be a spill if there is an oil port on the west coast. I know the minister shares with me the terrible thought of seeing British Columbia beaches covered with oil.
There is another reason why we worry about a spill. It is not just the love of the sea. The fact is that we have an incredible Fraser River salmon industry. It is a resource, as a food resource, that is comparable to the wheat capacity of the prairies. It is a permanent renewable resource. If we have a spill, it is gone.
Another matter which concerns me-and I will be frank about this-is that the government looks like a fool. My Canadian government, our government, looks like a fool. It seems to support the Foothills application. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) practically said so in the House the other day. It is counting on that, and then suddenly Foothills withdraws. Where is the policy? There is no policy. 1 hope the minister will rise after me and tell the House the policy. I do not like to see our government look like a fool. If that is an example of private planning, then God help us after we return everything to the private sector. We must plan for this. We cannot just let Foothills carry the ball. We cannot put everything on Foothills, and then suddenly they withdraw and leave the government with egg on its face. Where do we go from here? What is something positive that we can do?
Apparently the minister has accepted as a fait accompli the fact of a west coast oil port, and the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips) appears to have accepted that. I do not accept that for one minute, and neither do my colleagues in the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 suggested to the Prime Minister in a supplementary question that he should get together with the American president on November 9 and 10 and put this item on the agenda. The Prime Minister was kind enough to accept that

October 16, 1979
Adjournment Debate
suggestion. It seems to me the government should go further. It should adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), given in the House today, to send a strong note to the American government telling it what our policy is and that we do not want that tanker route. Also the Prime Minister and the government can use its leverage with the Americans. They can say that it is our policy that the user must take the risk. This is American oil going to Americans. Why should we take the risk? The user should take the risk. The government should say that to the President of the United States.
Also the government should say to the President of the United States, "You must extend the timetable". We can work together as countries to solve this problem. We can do it rationally. We do not have to follow the American timetable. We will have a lot of future dealings with the Americans, especially in gas exports, so we have some clout in dealing with them. I should like to hear the minister on this. The government should have a policy on this, not just follow Foothills and fall over flat when Foothills withdraws. I have suggested there are positive steps that the government should take. My time is running out.


Mr. Kempling:: It sure is.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I say to the hon. member: I hope time is not running out for the west coast of Canada and for our relationship with the United States.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this matter during oral questions the other day and for bringing it forward in the adjournment debate tonight. The Government of Canada is opposed to increased tanker traffic on the west coast. That has been the position of this government, not just since it became a government, but through its speakers in opposition going back as far as 1970.
As the hon. member knows, I put no blame on the New Democratic Party, but I put a lot of blame on the former Liberal government which in those years refused to discuss with Americans any consideration of a land route for both gas and oil that would have avoided the tanker problem completely. It was their refusal in those years to enter into any kind of serious negotiation with the United States that put us in the dilemma we are in today. I know that my hon. friend understands that. It does not lie well in the mouth of the former
prime minister to play the games he played today in question period where he suggested that the present prime minister (Mr. Clark) is somehow to blame because no action was taken when in fact he, as prime minister of the former administration, could have taken it.
This government supported Foothills, and that support was firm and indicated to the United States in an aide memoire. The fact is that we do have our regulatory processes. That aide memoire said that no final decision could be made until the National Energy Board had completed its hearings and there was another application. The reasons for Foothills' withdrawal are reasons which Foothills must explain to the country and to those who supported the company.
The dilemma we now face is exactly the dilemma put by the hon. member, and that is, first of all, is there any way in which we can persuade the government of the United States to look very closely at the remaining options, and is there any way, if necessary, that we can persuade that government, which will have to change its legislation, to extend the time. The Prime Minister has said that he will be discussing this matter not only with myself but with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and that he will be communicating our concerns to the government of the United States.
I thank the hon. member for his expressions of concern, and they will be passed on to the government of the United States. We are in a very difficult position, and I emphasize that the final decision does not rest with the Government of Canada.
I do want to point out the fact that when the U.S. Secretary of the Interior said that he is prepared to recommend to the President of the United States that the northern tier route be accepted, he also went on to say that he would allow a year for the northern tier route to work out its finances and that in the event they could not do so-that seems to indicate perhaps some doubt in the secretary's mind-then he would look at other options.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, October 17, 1979