1979-10-11

Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of urgent necessity.
In view of the unfortunate decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) to increase codfish quotas in the 4T and 4VN areas of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to allow boats of 100 feet and over to fish 6,000 metric tons of cod, which will have disastrous consequences for inshore fishermen and those who depend on the fisheries of the Gulf for their survival, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr):
That the committee on fisheries and forestry be set up at once and that the House refer the matter to the committee so that the minister may explain his decision which favours the companies at the expense of the independent fishermen and that the fishermen of the Gulf may show to the committee the effects of that irresponsible decision.


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.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. Since Canadians, particularly those 2.7 million living under the poverty level, are worried and concerned by
the many contradictory statements recently made by ministers on cuts and selectivity in pensions, family allowances, Unemployment Insurance Commission and social services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That the House requests the Prime Minister to table without delay the terms of reference and the members of his planned royal commission which is purported to reduce federal payments under medicare and CAP, in order that Canadians in this vulnerable sector of our community may have their very real fears allayed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 present this motion under Standing Order 43 believing that it expresses the opinion of every member of this House. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House welcomes the assurance that legislation respecting veterans will be introduced at this session, and calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce forthwith an amendment to the Pension Act to provide prorata pensions for widows where the rate of the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent, it being understood that such a measure would be dealt with very quickly by this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 11, 1979


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the very large number of young Canadians between ages 16 to 24 who are jobless, and in view of the fact that a great many people between ages 60 and 65 have acute survival problems due to the lack of purchasing power, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House require the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take all the necessary steps to introduce in the House this fall a bill lowering eligibility age for the old age security pension to 60 in order to allow workers of that age to leave their jobs, a situation which would have the effect of reducing the unemployment rate that prevails in the main regions of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On the basis of the Prime Minister's statement on CBC "Newsmagazine" recently that the government should stimulate certain sections of the economy, on the basis of public statements by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) that heavy emphasis should be laid on the inshore fishery, and in view of the fact that fishermen cannot get any money to replace sadly-used vessels on the Atlantic coast particularly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That this House calls on the government to immediately ensure adequate funding for small craft harbours, including those Canada Works projects which require support from federal fisheries.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to draw its attention to the fact that following the announcement made by the government that it would sell Canadair and de Havilland, the shareholders of these profitable companies, who are Canadians, are anxious and want to be informed prior to any other transaction, to ensure that the objectives of the former government are maintained. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro):
That the House consider that the government, in view of the record success of Canadair and de Havilland in the aeronautic field, must ensure, prior to selling these companies, that the objectives set out by the former government, namely Canadian control, technological development and job creation, are maintained and that such transaction, if it is deemed necessary, serve the interests of the present shareholders, who are the Canadian taxpayers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the new Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) now proposes further studies into the federal government's role in the cultural field, and considering that this action follows the Secretary of State's criticisms, while in opposition, of the previous administration for alleged policy inaction and restraint, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd):
That this House urges the new government to demonstrate the sincerity of the views of its Secretary of State by bringing into the House for consideration as quickly as possible the six budgetary cultural commitments made by the new Secretary of State to this House on November 24, 1978.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
October 11, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, ! rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of an urgent and pressing nature to this House.
In view of the serious nature of Indian health care in Canada and the stated concern of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) to this situation, and because of the contradictory position of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp), who has implemented a freeze on unexpended funds for capital projects, including those for safety and health, which affect hundreds of current projects which should be currently under construction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the House instruct the minister to immediately lift the freeze on capital funds for native projects.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from the public comments made by the distinguished member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain to the effect that the Conservative caucus was in revolt against the increase in interest rates. I believe his words were that the caucus are not a bunch of sheep.
It is important that the country knows from the Prime Minister, for economic stability reasons, that his government is in complete support of Governor Bouey and his policies.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to give that assurance to the House of Commons, and also to give the assurance that one of the
Oral Questions
changes that occurred after the election of May 22 is that the caucus of the government party is no longer a caucus of sheep.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I expect we will witness this spectacle very often, of the caucus applauding itself for its great virtues. I am more interested in the virtue of the government, and I really want to know if there has been any question or any discussion of the resignation by the governor of the bank made to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there has been no discussion with myself, with the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the government of the possibility of the resignation of the governor of the Bank of Canada. We do not expect any such indication, and we certainly would not welcome any indication by the governor of the Bank of Canada that he might be contemplating any action.


INTEREST RATES-POLICY FOLLOWED BY GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is it correct, as stated, apparently, by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain on "Canada A.M." this morning that the governor of the Bank of Canada is not following Conservative policy in what he is doing with interest rates? Is it the intention of this government to simply make the governor of the Bank of Canada an arm of Tory economic policy, whatever it might be?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question by the hon. gentleman, the governor of the Bank of Canada is not following Conservative policy, nor following Liberal policy: he is following the policy of the Bank of Canada, which is an independent-


An hon. Member:: That is not what you said this morning.


John Carnell Crosbie: When you get more members, you can sit on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, if I can answer a serious question in a serious fashion without the caterwauling from the left, the governor of the Bank of Canada is setting his own policy. The Bank of Canada has an independence given to it under legislation passed by this House. I agree with the steps the governor of the Bank of Canada has taken, because in my view there are no alternatives to those steps due to the economic condition we have been left in by the previous government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Do his words mean that even though on the surface he talks of support, when he refers to the governor of the Bank of Canada following his own policy, it means the Minister of Finance does not really agree with what the

October 11, 1979
Oral Questions
governor is doing and would prefer to see him do something else?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the hon. gentleman should consult with my predecessor as minister of finance, who explained the relationship between the government and the governor of the Bank of Canada some months ago.
The position is that the governor of the Bank of Canada consults the Minister of Finance. He consults me weekly. When something comes up that requires action by the Bank of Canada, he informs me of what action he believes he should take. We can then discuss what action 1 think he should take. I can agree, or discuss it. I might even question it. Then he makes his own decision on what action he is going to take.
In connection with the three recent interest rate increases, I have concurred with the governor of the Bank of Canada in his decision. There has been no conflict between us. We have consulted, and we have not always slavishly followed the increases as the last minister of finance did on at least seven occasions in the last year and one-half.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Three in five months!


INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT DIRECTION OVER GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. He has just said that he and the governor of the Bank of Canada have reached agreement on three occasions to raise interest rates. Just before the election, he and his Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, were denouncing interest rate increases time after time. Since we have now had the greatest collapse in stock market prices in the Toronto Stock Exchange-


An hon. Member:: How would you know?


John Edward Broadbent: -since 1929, and since small businessmen are paying up to 17 per cent to borrow money, and everything indicates that we are heading into a depression, I should like to ask the minister if he knows that he has the authority under the Bank Act to direct the governor of the Bank of Canada to adopt a different policy, perhaps in line with the kind his party argued for before the election.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is following his usual procedure of shedding crocodile tears about what happens on the Toronto Stock Exchange. What happened on the Toronto Stock Exchange was that there was a lot of speculation, particularly in oil and gas shares, and people are taking their profits now.
With respect to the policy of the Bank of Canada, I want to try to explain this to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. What was objected to by us with respect to the previous government's performance was their economic performance that resulted in their being put in a position where the Bank of Canada had to approve interest rates caused by the fact that

they had allowed our economy to degenerate with a huge deficit, with the balance of payments and the like. Our criticism was of the economic action of the government which had caused these interest rate increases, not the interest rate increases themselves. They are only a symptom of what had been permitted to happen by the last government.
[ Translation]


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: You have been the government for the past six months!


RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONETARY POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a final supplementary question to the Prime Minister who, in that position, was doing just the opposite of what the Minister of Finance has alleged. 1 quoted the Prime Minister yesterday and made it very clear that as leader of the opposition he was opposed to the policy of increasing interest rates because of its damaging effects on the people of Canada.
There was no question about that before the election. Since he has the legal authority, as Prime Minister, to direct monetary policy, I should like to ask him who is determining monetary policy in Canada-the governor of the Bank of Canada, or he as Prime Minister? If he believes there should be a change in interest rate policy, why does he not use his authority and leadership to bring it about?
[DOT] (N25)


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has explained to the Leader of the New Democratic Party and to the House the relationship, which the Leader of the New Democratic Party should have known, between the government and the governor of the Bank of Canada. The Minister of Finance has also indicated that what we took exception to prior to the election, and what we take exception to now, is the state of the Canadian economy created by years of ineffective leadership by the government which the people of Canada replaced.
Naturally, we do not like high interest rates. What we are working toward now, as I indicated yesterday in my speech in this House and as other colleagues of mine have indicated frequently in this House and in the country, is an improvement in the economic situation in Canada which will allow the governor of the Bank of Canada to recommend policies of lower interest rates, which this government will certainly support when that recommendation is made.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a final supplementary question. The Prime Minister said in this House in February: "There is nothing less sensible than the government's"-please note-"determination to increase interest rates to record levels."
Considering that his Minister of Finance has just acknowledged-he is, I think, in the government; I think he is there- that he agreed with the interest rate increase three times this
October 11, 1979

summer, and therefore he has implicitly acknowledged it is government responsibility, I ask the minister if he will exercise his authority under section 14(2) of the Bank Act and issue a directive to the governor of the Bank of Canada to roll back the most recent increase to avoid the kinds of evils in the economy which the Prime Minister himself alluded to last spring.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this specific question is no. In reference to the rather lengthy preamble, our determination is to create economic conditions in this country which will allow interest rates to come down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: Why don't you bring in a budget?


POLICY ON INTEREST RATES-SUPPORT FOR GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With all due respect, in response to the question posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West, the minister did not adequately respond.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm his unequivocal support for the governor of the Bank of Canada and assure this House that he will remain in his job, or are we witnessing another Coyne affair which took the Diefenbaker government three years to fall out with the governor of the Bank of Canada, and this government five months?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let me put it beyond any doubt. Mr. Bouey has my full support. He has had my full support since June 5, and he will continue to have my full support. I think he is doing an excellent job. He is a very capable man who is doing his best in very difficult circumstances.
There is no question that he has been asked to take any action against his will or to take any action that he does not want to take, nor will he ever receive any threats or have anything to fear from this government. That is all I can say to put the hon. member's mind at rest.
The governor is taking the action that our economic conditions dictate, that our perilous position with reference to our trade balance dictates by its own inflationary tendencies.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance, is it going to be the same kind of support as that given to Bill Hood, former deputy minister of finance and a very responsible senior public official? Would the Minister of Finance confirm that after Mr. Hood's dismissal he had a meeting with his senior officials, at which time he outlined his support for Mr. Hood, and that the decision was imposed by the Prime Minister's office?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Shame.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not see how this is a supplementary; but I do not want to "Hoodwink the hon. gentleman, either!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The former deputy minister of finance, Mr. Hood, has my full support as a very capable-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is going to be dangerous.


Mr. MacEachen:: Your support is the kiss of death.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a very fine public servant, and I am glad to see that he has good friends in hon. members opposite who will drag his name up in public with these kinds of questions. I do not think they have done him any good.


POSITION OF CHAIRMAN OF TASK FORCE ON PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the question 1 asked him yesterday which, I will remind the House, had to do with the chairman of the task force on Petro-Canada, Mr. McDougall. Although he is on leave of absence as president of Labatt's, he is still receiving full salary from that company. That company is owned by Brascan, which has indicated an interest in buying Petro-Canada. Has the minister been able to find an answer to that question?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that the chairman of the task force, Mr. McDougall, is on leave of absence from Labatt Limited. It is not his intention to return to that company at the end of the leave of absence. He will, in fact, be terminating his relationship with that company.


Gary Francis McCauley: Whether he is on leave of absence, going back or not, is he still on salary?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated yesterday that he is on salary.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is on a leave of absence with pay. He is in the process of terminating his employment and will, in fact, be terminating his employment. However, as I indicated yesterday, the premise of the hon. member's question is completely unfounded in the sense that Brascan has indicated in public statements that it has no interest with respect to the acquisition of either Petro-Canada as a whole or any assets thereof, so that the question the hon. member puts is simply not relevant.

Oral Questions


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think the minister's answer is fair to Mr. McDougall. The government has put Mr. McDougall in a very unfavourable position with regard to conflict of interest, and I feel-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Gary Francis McCauley: The minister should answer the question regarding conflict of interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment and it has to do with contradictory statements attributed to him on acid rain pollutants. On the one hand the minister seems to prefer to delay action on this very serious matter, waiting for the United States to develop controls, and on the other hand he says that "our appeals for more U.S. controls will likely fall on deaf ears if we do not begin to clean up our own act," as he stated here in Ottawa on September 25.
Can the minister explain to this House and to the country what is the actual policy of the Government of Canada in dealing with this very serious danger to our environment?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this question because, as I have said before, the elimination of the acid rain problem is the number one priority of the Department of the Environment and this government in environmental matters.
The policy of the government is to negotiate with the United States an agreement somewhat along the lines of the Great Lakes water quality agreement, in order to achieve at the same time joint control of emission sources on both sides of the border. To this end discussions have been going on between the Government of Canada, my department, the Department of External Affairs, the appropriate departments in the provinces and officials of the American Environmental Protection Agency. As the hon. member knows, I met with Mr. Costle on August 8 and came back with confirmation that the United States is prepared to work toward such an agreement.
With respect to our own situation in Canada, we are working very closely with the provinces to have in place shortly recommendations as to the action which should be taken in Canada to bring before our American counterparts. The strategy is to move equally with the United States, and we are working very hard to bring about an international agreement

because it is impossible to solve the problem without international action.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform this House whether this agreement is being negotiated, and what are the specific steps the Government of Canada is asking the governments of Ontario and Quebec to take in the meantime?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is not saying to the provinces that they ought to impose controls which are much stricter than controls presently existing in the United States. We are asking the provinces to work with us to work out, in an agreement with the United States, equal standards and identification of emission controls so that the two countries can form such an agreement and work equally on both sides of the border.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.


An hon. Member:: Sink with Sine!


Pauline Jewett: My question concerns the commitment of the government to reduce the size of the federal public service and its commitment not to have these reductions disproportionately affect women, in keeping with its election promise to promote the status of women in the public service.
Would the minister tell the House what guidelines have been sent to the departments and agencies to ensure that women do not disproportionately bear the burden of these reductions and, if the guidelines have been set, would the minister please table them?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her first question in the House. This will be my first answer in my present responsibility.
The answer to the question the hon. member has put has indeed been communicated. The status of women in the public service has been something about which we have been clear. We do not want to see the status of women lessened in any way as a result of the reduction in the number of federal public servants which we anticipate will take place over the next three or 3Vi years. I can assure the hon. member that we intend to monitor the situation continually to see that such a lessening of women's participation in the public service will not occur.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, clearly there are no guidelines. The minister has avoided any reference at all to the guidelines which were basically promised by the Progressive Conservative Party. Specifically, last month 12 of 14 of the employees laid off by the Agricultural Stabilization Board were women. Two
October 11, 1979

were women in their fifties with families to support. They have little hope of finding new jobs.
Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House what immediate plans he has to protect these women and what plans he has to avoid repetition of such discriminatory practices?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that clearly there are no guidelines. I indicated that the guideline is no lessening of the number of women working in the public service as a result of reductions.


An hon. Member:: That is a wish.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With reference to the hon. member's specific point, I will be very pleased to look specifically into the situation to which the hon. member has referred, and I will report back to her in a private letter.


PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN PERSONNEL-EFFECT ON FRANCOPHONES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if he has established guidelines regarding the consequences of the reduction in the number of Francophones in the civil service who, according to reports we have received, will be more affected than any other group in the civil service as a result of the initiatives taken by the president.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the former minister on his new critic's role in this House.
With reference to his question, he will be pleased to hear that the proportion of Francophones in the Canadian public service has actually gone up marginally on a percentage basis. We have indicated that we do not wish to see any deterioration in that ratio, that is, the number of Francophones in the public service compared with the total number in the public service.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROGRAM WILL BE ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE JOBS TO PERSONNEL LAID OFF
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister not aware of the serious consequences of a policy of attrition on the groups just mentioned by the member for Saint-Maurice? Francophones and women have a high employment termination rate, 27 per cent for women and 21 per cent for Francophones. Has the minister devised a development and training program for these persons who might find themselves on a very competitive labour market, who are now pursuing a career in the public service and could be laid off as a result of the arbitrary decisions he has taken and of his
Oral Questions
attrition policies as he calls them and which are just out of this world?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again, may I congratulate the hon. member on his role as Treasury Board public service critic. I must say, however, that although he has been a critic for several months he has obviously not understood our attrition program.
The anxieties to which he refers are, in fact, unreal. Over the coming period we anticipate that for every three persons leaving the public service two will he hired, and I believe the hon. member will find that the problems to which he refers will not materialize.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The minister did not answer the question. I would like to know if there will be a program for the development and improvement of public servants? There should be a full development program that would allow public servants either to embrace a new career or to get a new job within the public service. That is the question. Is there a global program for the development and the improvement of the staff?


Some hon. Members:: There is nothing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In his supplementary question I suppose the hon. member has underlined the fact that he did not read the material we put out. We have indicated that we do facilitate the re-employment of any person who may have to leave the public service as a result of program changes or that type of thing.
There is no doubt that the kind of circumstances to which the hon. member refers have been anticipated and we intend to ensure that those who are presently public servants will not be laid off simply as a result of any reduction or attrition in the public service.


PENSIONS
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Knowing the great sympathy of the minister for public service employees and also the uncertainty that is created by some of his initiatives, would he tell the House if it is his intention to amend the Pension Act in order to assure retired public servants that their pensions will be geared to the cost of living?

October 11, 1979
OraI Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The anxieties to which the hon. member refers are, in fact, only in his mind. He has referred to legislation which was before the previous Parliament, Bill C-12. 1 can tell him we have reviewed that legislation. We found it inadequate and we intend to introduce in this House a much more appropriate bill in substitution for it, one which will take into account the rather frightening "unfunding" which took place under the previous government with respect to the superannuation accounts held on behalf of the public servants of Canada.


INQUIRY WHETHER NEW BILL WILL PROVIDE FOR INDEXING
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: My question is again directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Could he tell the House if there will be a clause in the new bill which is going to be tabled, in order to assure retired public servants that they will get a pension indexed to the cost of living?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: have already indicated that the bill which was brought before the Thirtieth Parliament is now under review. We intend to bring in a more satisfactory bill, at which time the hon. member will see that we have more appropriately provided for the indexing of public service pensions than perhaps he is now anticipating.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robin Richardson (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. I refer to an article in The Globe and Mail in which Mr. John P. T. Gilmore, the president of Canavia Transit Inc., a somewhat mysterious Montreal-based company which refuses to disclose its directors and financial backers, and a company which has filed an application before the Canadian Transport Commission to use the Toronto Island airport for a STOL commuter [DOT] service, alleges that the hon. gentleman, as Minister of Transport, has given a clear directive-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should put his question.


Robin Mark Richardson: I should like to ask the minister whether he has given approval to the CTC to proceed with the application of Canavia Transit, whether he has given support to that application and whether the government has taken a decision on the use of Toronto Island for STOL service.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: As the
hon. member knows, I am sure, Canavia is free to make an application. 1 indicated this in my letter, and the interpretation which Mr. Gilmore has placed upon my letter is inaccurate.


PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS IF ENERGY PRICES INCREASED
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given that it is the reported intent of this government to move immediately and quickly toward world energy prices, and that the entire agricultural sector of Canada will be unduly affected by such abrupt and unconsidered movement; given, further, that producers of foodstuffs, as well as consumers in the country, will be affected and are virtually unable to shield themselves from the impact of such action, may I ask whether the minister has consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to ascertain the impact on food production and food prices of such a move, and whether he has set in motion some mechanism for shielding both agricultural producers and consumers of this country from the kind of' action contemplated?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Members of this cabinet, unlike their predecessors, are always in consultation with each other with respect to matters of national concern. I can assure the hon. member that these factors with respect to the implications of price increases are very much in my mind, that there is full discussion with respect to a comprehensive energy policy, and that our approaches to the subject take seriously into account the aspect the hon. member has raised.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I am more than happy to hear that the minister is consulting with his colleague. I wonder whether I might ask his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, whether he would be prepared to entertain an alternative to allowing the price increases to go ahead and to suggest to the minister of energy that the energy-related cost increases should be exempted, 'and that the farmers of this country should not be required to pay them either through the fuel going into their tractors or the nitrate fertilizers derived from natural gas, thus protecting not only food producers of this country but consumers as well.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: I thank the hon. member for his question. I might say it is not the kind of question I had expected to receive off the bat. But I do appreciate his recommendation because it does concern a serious problem affecting the food sector in its totality.
When my hon. friend, the minister of energy, tells the House we are consulting, he means just that; and we expect to continue to consult on a regular basis to bring forth solutions to this very serious problem.

October 11, 1979


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the first place, 1 am pleased to see that shipyards are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne as they were of course in the last Speech from the Throne of our party. Now considering that concern or those pious wishes stated in the Speech from the Throne, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he has not yet replied to a first telegram sent in August and a second one dated September 19 signed by the president of the Lauzon shipyards representing 3,000 workers. 1 am also asking him when he will answer the request made by the president of shipyards' workers that a meeting be arranged with the senior members of the cabinet to discuss the short-term rather than the long-term future of the shipyards where there have been so many dismissals throughout the country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question next week.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. As the chairmanship of CRTC is a term appointment for seven years-and rightly so, since that function requires total independence from the government of the day-I should like to know from the minister why the government decided to tamper with this rule and found out all of a sudden that Mr. Camu was indispensable as deputy minister of another department before he had finished his term. He had served only two years of a seven-year term, and I am wondering why this function was tampered with and why Mr. Camu was offered another job.


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -the hon. member is poorly informed. It will take a day or two to get used to the new relationships.
The hon. member, who is the former minister of the department, is not well informed. As I understand it, that is not what has occurred at all. We were most anxious for Mr. Camu to remain in his present position but-as the former minister, the hon. member, knows-Mr. Camu has chosen employment
Oral Questions
outside the public service. We regret that very much, but we wish him well in his new work.


Jeanne Sauvé: I am quite aware that he has taken a job in the private sector, but I would like the minister to check if he had been offered another job in a government department before he decided to go to the private sector; and I should like to know from the minister whether we can now expect to see the very competent vice chairman, Mr. Dalfen, promoted to the position of chairman or whether we will be treated to another patronage appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I know that the former minister is well aware of what patronage appointments are all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I want to assure her that I have discussed the matter of Mr. Camu leaving the public service directly with him, and that it is not as has been said by the hon. member. If she wants to, she should talk to Mr. Camu directly about that.
On the second matter, in order that we can have the very best people serve in important institutions like CRTC, this government is going to consult widely and fairly before making the proper appointment.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and it concerns a question which 1 put to the minister yesterday regarding his intervention in the grain handlers' strike in Montreal.
In the question period yesterday the minister replied that "meaningful discussions'' were taking place at that time. It turns out now that no meaningful negotiations are taking place and none are planned. Will the minister please cut out the flimflammery-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -and tell the House that he is prepared to involve himself directly in bringing to a resolution this very serious problem on the Montreal docks?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that the hon. member has adopted my wording which was so effective, but unfortunately it is not as effective when he uses it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
62

October 11, 1979
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just want to tell the hon. member that, as 1 stated yesterday, the mediator was meeting with the parties involved in a private way. I have received confirmation, contrary to press reports, that there have been-I say this without any equivocation-private meetings with certain parties and discussions have been held.
I would think that the hon. member would know the way that mediation works and that this is the procedure that is brought about when there is an ability to know that an all-encompassing meeting around the table is counterproductive. The mediator intends to follow this course of action in order to bring about a solution to this very worrisome matter, and we hope now that the parties will get together in order to bring about the necessary solution.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that I have in my hand a telegram from the trade unions representing the workers, in which they indicate clearly that no discussions are taking place and none are planned, can the minister inform the House who these persons are who are having these private discussions to resolve the matter? Stop bamboozling us; come clean!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is another word which I think the hon. member cannot use effectively. I wish the hon. member would acquire his own vocabulary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The parties with whom the mediator is meeting are, of course, the parties to the dispute and I do not accept the hon. member's premise, arrived at by way of some telegram, that there are no meetings being held and no meetings planned. Certainly meetings are being planned. The mediator knows his job and he has been meeting with the parties in the dispute and has been having discussions with them.
It does not serve any good purpose for the hon. member to aggravate what is a very delicate situation. It seems to me that he does not want the strike settled, but 1 want it settled and the only way we can settle it is to use common sense-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]


MINISTER'S INVOLVEMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS TO SETTLE STRIKE
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
He has just indicated that meetings are now in progress. I think he has been misinformed: no meeting is being held at the present time. I should also like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he will decide to intervene personally to solve the problem, and when he will accept the recommendations made

by the Prime Minister to the effect that he should ask to be involved in this case and to solve the problem. When will he decide that the country is not made up of two parts and that it is normal that the problem should be solved in Montreal and in Vancouver?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is screaming about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me tell him that, in terms of personal involvement, I have had more involvement with this particular work stoppage than any other.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He does not know, or he conveniently forgets, that I have met with CNTU who have indicated to me that the only way this matter can be resolved is by way of a settlement, and I told them to go back and settle the dispute.
In terms of what the Prime Minister had indicated about personal involvement, we did appoint a mediator who has been on top of the situation. If the hon. member wants the strike settled, he should be more constructive in his questions, he should understand that delicate negotiations are going on and that any flimflammery or bamboozling we have heard from the hon. member and the hon. member for Nickel Belt will not solve the situation in a very meaningful way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture, I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his new responsibilities and to assure him of our co-operation while wishing him good luck in the almost impossible task of replacing the hon. member who preceded him.


An hon. Member:: How true!


Marcel Lessard: However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if the way to face the challenge is really that which the Speech from the Throne suggests: nowhere is mention made of the agriculture department, except for a reference to grains, which are the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.
I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he really intends to participate actively in promoting his department
October 11, 1979

and ensuring that the commitment of his party, that is to give the Minister of Agriculture even greater stature and make of him a special adviser to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada who, yesterday, in his speech, did not even allude to the agriculture department. What does the Minister of Agriculture intend to do to make sure that he can fulfil-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me without binoculars. My question is for the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment. It concerns a possible west coast oil port at or near Port Angeles, Washington.
1 think the minister and I share some common ground in this matter. We both live in British Columbia and love the west coast. We both regret any possibility of a spill in those waters. 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?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question and his expressions of common cause in environmental problems. At the present time, the Government of Canada has indicated to the United States, by an aide memoire, that the preference would be for the Foothills' route, which would be an overland route, and that the Kitimat route does not meet with our approval. No mention has been made of Trans Mountain, but the aide memoire indicates that any decision will be subject to the Canadian regulatory process. That means Trans Mountain and Foothills will appear before the National Energy Board. We will watch very closely those deliberations.
The object of the exercise is to minimize, to the degree possible, tanker traffic on the west coast. This is not completely in our hands, but to the degree that we can get one of those options selected, as opposed to the northern tier route across the United States, we will have met our environmental objectives at least to a degree. If all else fails, we will have to work very closely with the United States in an agreement to ensure that navigation is safe and that clean-up facilities and crews are available.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT CARTER WILL DISCUSS SUGGESTED OIL PORT ON WEST COAST
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister on this
Oral Questions
matter. Considering that President Carter, by American law, must make a decision on the oil port by December 6, and considering that the Prime Minister, I understand, is meeting with the President in Ottawa in November, is the Prime Minister prepared to put on the agenda of that meeting the crucial matter of the oil port? Is he prepared to ask the President if it is possible to extend that American timetable so that we can work out a proper timetable suitable for the interests of both countries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to raise that matter with the President of the United States when he is here. I should like to take the opportunity to advise the House of Commons that there has been a confirmation of dates of the visit of the President of the United States to Canada on November 9 and 10 of this year. I will be extending, on behalf of the House of Commons-or suggesting that the Speakers do-the opportunity for the President of the United States to deliver an address to a joint session of this House.
I will be pleased to raise the matter with him. If it looks like there is any practical possibility of our achieving any extension of those deadlines, I would be prepared to raise that matter with him as well. Naturally, I will not raise that matter if it appears that there is no practical possibility of the American President responding positively.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister resulting from the unsatisfactory answer his minister gave in the House yesterday regarding the resignation of the commissioner of the Yukon in protest over his government according certain provincial powers to the Yukon Territorial Council, which is the government for the
23,000	inhabitants of the Yukon. He did this without consulting Parliament, without consulting, as promised, the people of the Yukon or the provincial premiers. What appears to be happening is the establishment of de facto provincehood without the consent of either Yukoners or the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Watson: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the commissioner will remain on the executive committee, and that no changes to the commissioner's role and no additional provincial powers will be turned over to the Yukon Territorial Council without reference to and a full review by the Parliament of Canada of all the implications of this irresponsible rush toward provincehood?


An hon. Member:: Shame.

October 11, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must say in passing that I am surprised at the resistance expressed by spokesmen of the Liberal party to the extension of democracy in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But let me make it clear to the hon. member who raised the question and to the former minister who should be better informed-


Herb Breau: Will you do the same thing to the Acadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: What the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has done is extend powers to the limit allowed under present legislation which in fact will extend the capacity for assuming greater responsibility over the affairs of the people of the Yukon, people who on May 22 had an opportunity to cast their votes among parties which had taken different positions on that question. They elected the Minister of Public Works whose position on the question was well known.
If there is to be a further extension of the powers and the movement toward self-government of the people of the Yukon, which in the view of this government there should be, naturally that will involve consultation with the provinces, the people of the Yukon and to the degree necessary it will involve consideration by the House of Commons of any amendments to relevant legislation.


PRIVILEGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which has to do particularly with the question and the answer given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) yesterday afternoon in the House. I asked the minister the following question, as reported at page 28 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that the minister injected himself very quickly and expeditiously into the west coast grain handlers dispute, bringing it to a successful conclusion, and in view of the fact that the present grain handlers strike has been going on for five months and has the potential of creating problems for Quebec farmers this winter and for others, is the minister now prepared to insert himself directly into the dispute in an effort to resolve it as successfully as he did the west coast grain handlers strike?
The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member credit for asking that question, because I am also concerned about the matter. But I want to point out to him that at this very moment the mediator, Mr. Rolland Doucet, is meeting with the parties involved in a private way and having meaningful discussions. Progress is being made. For me to say anything further at this particular time would be unproductive.
I was rather flabbergasted by that response, so I immediately had someone from my leader's office, Mr. Jacques Belanger, contact the union involved, particularly Mr. Andre L'Heureux,

the vice-president of the CSN representing the workers in this dispute. As a result of that telephone call, the following telegram was received in my leader's office yesterday afternoon at approximately five o'clock. I will read the telegram into the record because it is extremely important to the question of privilege I am raising. It reads as follows:

Following your call to my office at 3.30 p.m., I do not understand how the Minister of Labour could have said that we were now discussing or meeting for that purpose, for neither I nor the president of the union nor any union spokesman are meeting the mediators or the National Harbours Board at this time.
Signed: Andre L'Heureux, vice-president.

It was signed by Mr. Andre L'Heureux, vice-president. It is very clear from the telegram that those who have the responsibility of representing the workers in this dispute clearly know nothing of the negotiations that the minister said in the House were going on at that moment. Not being satisfied with that, I asked the assistant of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to contact the mediator's office. The mediator's office indicated that it knew nothing about any negotiations or discussions which were going on at that moment or had been planned.
An interesting Canadian Press article appeared in the Thursday, October 11, 1979, edition of the Gazette. It quotes the Minister of Labour outside the chamber. 1 should like to quote from the article as follows:
[DOT] (mo)
Alexander said "the full force and effect" of the labour department's mediation and conciliation services have been in motion for weeks in an effort to end the dispute.
In addition, he had met union representatives, heard their case and "indicated that the door's always open." Also, Don Mazankowski, minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, had met union officials.
L'Heureux said Alexander "is certainly misinformed about what his officials are doing in the field."
"They are not very active or dynamic ... we would have expected them to be present more forcefully," he said, adding that all Mazankowski had done was to send a telegram Tuesday expressing hope that negotiations are going well. The union had asked Mazankowski for help in a September 14 telegram.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the last meaningful contact between the mediator and the parties concerned was on October 4 when Mr. Rolland Doucet, the mediator, presented a proposal for settlement to both the union and management. It is interesting to note that the union accepted the mediator's proposal for settlement, but management rejected that proposal.
This dispute has now gone on for five months. It was interesting to note the speed with which this minister involved himself in the dispute on the west coast when grain handlers were on strike. I think the minister has misled this House. It is not for me to say whether or not it was deliberate, but he repeated what he said again today. I would have to say with all knowledge that he has misled this House again today by the comments he made in response to the question I put, which was the same as I put yesterday.
October 11, 1979

I say that the minister should show himself to be an honourable minister by retracting what he has said and by accepting responsibility for lack of communication in his department, and he should immediately insert himself into the negotiations to ensure a speedy settlement of that particular dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) also wishes to rise on a question of privilege.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to support my colleague for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I believe that yesterday the minister involuntarily misled the House in his answer and I hope that he will recognize his mistake today. The parties involved have not met with anyone since October 4. 1 believe that the minister's department may have misinformed him, or that perhaps the minister did not ask the necessary information from his department. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, 1 note once again that the minister intervened in the Vancouver matter much more quickly than in the port conflict in Montreal. Yet, this conflict has been going on for five months. I believe that it is extremely important for the minister to realize that not telling the truth involuntarily in the House is extremely serious because if we can no longer believe the answers given by a minister, the privileges of all the members of this House will be weakened. The Canadian population is entitled to ask questions about the qualifications of a minister or a government.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) to withdraw the misleading statements that he made in the House yesterday. This was certainly involuntary because I am aware of his qualities as a man and as a parliamentarian. However, it is extremely important that in the future he does not act as though there were two Canadas instead of one. When there is a problem in Montreal, the issue is just as important as when there is a problem in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stol-lery) rising on the same question of privilege?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege.
We are faced here with a minister who many of us like personally. However, the question raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is a very crucial one in that it affects so importantly the privileges of all members of parliament. We have been greeted today with a spectacle. We are members trying to perform as opposition members are supposed to perform. This was the spectacle of a minister clearly misleading.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
No one is accusing him of doing so on purpose, but this is a government that has given us platitudes about being consultative with the Canadian people and informing everyone, yet the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) is clearly found to be, accidentally and not meaningfully, misleading the House. He has given us information to which the hon. member for Nickel Belt has clearly responded. The minister has given us information about a strike situation in Montreal about which he really does not seem to know anything. We saw this happen today in respect of minister after minister.
I think this is an important question of privilege. The hon. member for Nickel Belt is to be congratulated for bringing it forward early enough in this Parliament so that you, Mr. Speaker, can make some kind of decision about how long this spectacle of ministers being totally without knowledge of the affairs of their departments will continue in this House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, that was a delightful debate. The only thing that bothers me is that when we are involved with the full force and effect of mediation and conciliation services, members should, for their own motives which are not understandable to me, bring about such a debate. They have said that I am misleading the House. They have said there have been no meetings and no discussions held. This really makes me wonder whether they are keeping abreast of these things.
My department, through my officials, has been involved with this matter. I can go through the litany in my briefing book starting from way back on February 20, 1979, when Mr. Len Waller was appointed as conciliation officer, right down to this date and the appointment of Mr. Rolland Doucet as mediator.
Obviously, hon. members will know-I see the former minister of labour sitting there and I am sure he will understand- that the whole concept of mediation and conciliation services, particularly those provided by the mediator, calls for discussions and meetings with the parties, not necessarily around the table, collectively speaking.
When I say that discussions and meetings have been held with the parties 1 stand by that. As a matter of fact, I have a note I want to read so that all will know what I was trying to say and what I did say today. This is what 1 intended to use this morning to indicate, as I did yesterday in the House, that the mediator in this dispute was "meeting with the parties involved in a private way".
I have since received confirmation, contrary to reports in the media, that the mediator did, indeed, meet with certain parties privately and held private discussions with others. Anyone knowledgeable of the processes of dispute resolution will readily recognize that such an approach is an integral part of a mediator's techniques when joint meetings around a table would be counterproductive. This is the procedure the mediator will be pursuing in his continuing efforts to bring both parties to the necessary compromise that will lead to a freely negotiated collective agreement.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go on.

October 11, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) says, "Go on". It seems to me that that hon. member, being one of the critics in this regard, should be more responsible in terms of knowing how a mediator's services are applied and how they work. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I urge those concerned with the resolution of this dispute to explore all possibilities of solution in a co-operative effort with the mediator.
Having regard to the question raised yesterday, I would respectfully submit that all members who have spoken, other than the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), should check the preamble to the hon. member's question posed yesterday in respect of me personally, because once again he did not know what he was talking about in that regard. This is the answer that I gave as reported at page 28 of Hansard dated October 10, 1979:
I want to give the hon. member credit for asking the question because 1 am also concerned about the matter, but I want to point out to him that at this very moment the mediator, Mr. Rolland Doucet, is meeting with the parties involved in a private way and having meaningful discussions. Progress is being made. For me to say anything further at this particular time would be unproductive.
It is not up to me to try to hide the facts or flim-flam or bamboozle anybody. My way of answering that question was a sincere attempt to make members more knowledgeable about the situation. If there was anything wrong with my answer at that particular time, it is the words "this very moment", and if that is what the hon. member is referring to, I must agree. Perhaps I got carried away in terms of answering the question, but it still does not deny the fact that discussions and meetings have been held with other parties and that meetings have been held with the parties.
I notice that the hon. member who spoke after the hon. member for Nickel Belt is nodding in the affirmative; in other words, he is agreeing that discussions and meetings have been held. If it will make members more confident with respect to my knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding my department-incidentally, I am not concerned about what they think of my knowledge or lack of knowledge with regard to my department-those are the facts.
I am here to do my job and I can tell hon. members that 1 am going to do the job and that this work stoppage is of concern to all of us. I would hope that those who are on the outside looking in, particularly the parties to the dispute and the mediator, get on the ball and resolve the matter as quickly as possible, because we all know what must be done in the long run.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if it will make members happier and if it will remove that cloud which has been cast upon my integrity, I will withdraw that point and the words "this very moment". Discussions and meetings were held with the parties, and I hope that my integrity remains intact as a result of that very important concession. There was no intent-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This gives me the opportunity to make my maiden speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There was no intent to mislead anyone in this House. I am here to give hon. members the facts and I will try my best to give the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members, I am sure, have realized for some time during the course of the discussion that what was at stake was a disagreement with respect to the kind of answer and the content of the answer given yesterday by the minister. The minister has said that he stands by his answer with the exception of a specific interpretative part, "this very moment". It is clearly a dispute between the parties and does not constitute a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I would like to table a report to the House of Commons on Supplementary Estimates (B) 1978-79 which shows how the items in these estimates were financed. Since some items were paid under authority of a special warrant, special reference to this effect will be included in the next appropriation bill. I have three more documents to table.
Mr. Speaker, by leave, I would like to table a report, in both official languages, to the House of Commons showing the special warrants issued under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act following the dissolution of Parliament on March 26, 1979, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2).


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1979-80
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am retabling the 1979-80 Main Estimates, and I have a message from His Excellency the Governor General signed by his own hand.

A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Main Estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America
October 11, 1979

Act, 1867, was presented by hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1979-80
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: am now tabling Supplementary Estimates (A), 1979-80, and have a message from His Excellency the Governor General signed by his own hand.

[ Translation]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, was presented by hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order relating to the tabling made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). Is he tabling the Main Estimates as we saw them in the last Parliament, unchanged; is he recommending them to the House, unchanged; or is he recommending the approval by the House of the spending plans of the former government which had ten months to run when he took over as President of the Treasury Board?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Main Estimates that I have just tabled, Mr. Speaker, are being tabled in identical form to the estimates that were last tabled by the former government. I have no further comment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the minister recommending these estimates to the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) just said that he is not recommending the estimates to the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Throw them away.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is a very unusual statement. I would like clarification from the President of the Treasury Board. If he cannot stand up to his responsibilities, perhaps he should resign immediately.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important to know, from the minister who tabled these estimates, whether the government and the President of the Treasury Board are recommending that the House of Commons approve these estimates-those words which were put in the mouth of the Governor General. Is the minister recommending these estimates for approval to the House?
Privilege-Mr. MacEachen


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the matter is an appropriate point of order, in the first place. It seems to be a matter which would be much more appropriate for the question period. If the opposition House leader and the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) have that kind of energy tomorrow, perhaps they can raise it at that time; I think that would be quite appropriate. As I understand the rules, the duty performed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) was to table the documents. They have now been tabled. If there are questions about those documents, they can be put during the question period in the normal way. That, certainly, is not an appropriate point of order at this stage of the proceedings.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think if the President of the Treasury Board is not living up to the tabling of those documents on the recommendation of the Governor General, he should withdraw them right away. If he does not want to propose to the House that we approve them, and he does not approve them-he has been President of the Treasury Board since the month of June-what the hell has he done since that date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I will take the matter under advisement. The documents have been tabled; they rest with the House. I will take under advisement the effect of the action of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) which has been to acknowledge that he has tabled the documents, and he has heard the representations about his own recommendation to the House. I will take the matter under advisement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on this question which goes to the very root of our parliamentary system, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacEACHEN-SUBMISSION OF ESTIMATES TO THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I heard the message from His Excellency. I do not have it before me, but as read by the Chair it stated that His Excellency recommends the spending estimates to the House of Commons. There is some doubt as to whether the Governor General received this advice from the government. On whose advice is he acting now, if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) will not say that he is recom-

October 11, 1979
Privilege-Mr. MacEachen
mending the estimates to the House? On whose authority is His Excellency recommending them, if not on the authority of the government? I do not believe this is a matter that can sit for 24 hours. This is the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter is very fundamental. I certainly do not intend to make a decision which would affect such a fundamental matter without an opportunity to consider it. I have taken under advisement the question which has been raised and I intend to give it careful study and consideration. I intend to rule on it as quickly as I can. If there are other arguments on the point, 1 would be pleased to hear them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that in answer to the question by the opposition House Leader (Mr. MacEachen) and by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) the President of the Treasury Board said that he did not take responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may not be on the record-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He shook his head.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but he obviously said no. If he is now saying that he did not say no, but that he recommends them-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Because 1 never said it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You said it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe we saw him shaking his head "no", but if he is saying-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have to say what we see. If the hon. member is saying that he did not say no and he did not intend to say no, why does he not indicate to us now that he is accepting his responsibility as the servant of the Crown to take responsibility for these estimates? He either said no, or he did not say no. We want to know if he is responsible, or not-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You said you are not recommending.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as a minister of the Crown.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to clarify now, as a mechanical matter, is the hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), in making any negative action, saying that he has not recommended their approval to the House? He was asked if he recommended their approval, and he had said that he did not recommend their approval today. Is he saying that he did not add a recommendation of the approval, or is he saying that he does not recommend their approval? They are two entirely different statements.
I have nothing on the record except the statement by the President of the Treasury Board that he has tabled the esti-

mates and takes no further action. That is the matter that is before me. I have to examine the question of the absence of a recommendation. I do not have in front of me any statement by the President of the Treasury Board that he does not recommend these estimates to the House of Commons; I simply have his declaration that he takes no further action. That is the point I have to decide.
The estimates have been tabled. The President of the Treasury Board has simply tabled the estimates and says nothing further. That was his declaration in response to the point of order. That is the situation I have to consider.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when you are looking into this matter, would you examine the record to find out whether the president of the treasury board in the last government went any further than the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) did today? My recollection is that all that is ever said by the President of the Treasury Board when he is tabling the estimates is that he has a message from the Governor General signed in his own hand. I do not see that anything different happened this morning than has happened in the past.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We asked him a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling of documents.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an undertaking given by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) when he was leader of the opposition, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, a list of some of the measures which the government proposes to place before Parliament during the first session of the Thirty-first Parliament.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Trudeau) (p. 37), and of the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Broadbent) (p. 47).
October 11, 1979
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy), I must add a few words to reaffirm the intention of the House concerning the situation which we discussed yesterday. On that occasion, I made some remarks about the decision made by the House Tuesday afternoon. To me, the situation is unchanged.

1 want to express careful concern here so that the circumstances be well understood. In my opinion, the precedents which have been cited by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) are very important. As 1 said to him and to his colleagues, in my view the vote in the House on Tuesday stands between me and those precedents. Because of the language used in that debate on Tuesday afternoon, I have to regard it as binding upon me as a declaration of the House up to this point. I have, therefore, said I am bound by that. As a result of being bound by that, I recognized another government member in the course of the debate. I do not change that decision.
I am concerned, however, and 1 sense that perhaps other members may be concerned, that we are dealing here with a matter of extreme importance and of a very fundamental nature respecting the position of parties and elected members in the House, and that is therefore fundamental to our democracy and our whole parliamentary system. We are dealing with it on the basis of a decision which may have the appearance of having been taken for some other purpose. We are relying, in other words, on a decision upon a motion for representation on a striking committee to come to a conclusion which affects the status of a party in the House of Commons.
I have said that I see no other alternative but for the Chair to be bound by that decision. Again, I say I do not change that position. I do not have the power, by any means, to change that decision or to reflect in any way on the decision of the House. 1 want to bring to the attention of the House, however, a similar situation which occurred in 1963 and the action that the House took at that time. There is in the Journals of the House a rather thorough treatment of the subject by the very distinguished Speaker at that time. This appears at page 385 of the Journals for 1963. That decision goes into the definition of parties as defined by Burke in the classic quotations that were referred to in defence of the position of minority parties in the House of Commons. The Speaker at that time suggested to the House that, without prejudice to the status quo at the moment, the matter might be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination. I do not have the authority to do that; only the House can decide to do that.
I leave with the House the suggestion that, while we recognize the leader today, the hon. member for Beauce, I am doing so without prejudice to the decision 1 took yesterday to recognize the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who does not find it convenient to proceed at this time: I do it in those circumstances. 1 cannot say to the House, "Please reflect on the decision that you took on Tuesday". That is not the purpose. I cannot change that; that is not the purpose, either.
The Address-Mr. F. Roy
[DOT] <1240)
It may be there is a consensus in the House, and if we are going to deal with the question that touches on the status of a party in the House, we might deal with it directly rather than indirectly, because it is a very important question.
Since some of the rationale in this decision seems to me to recommend itself on the very important and substantive grounds about the position of parties and minority parties in the House, I would invite all hon. members concerned to study the reasoning behind the decision of 1963 simply to determine whether the matter might be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This committee can examine the status of a party, report back to the House its findings with respect to that status, what the party should enjoy, what it should not, and what requirements would be. That would enable the House to deal directly with a problem which seems to me it has only been dealing with indirectly.
I leave that suggestion with the House. Nothing has changed; the situation remains the same. The hon. member for Beauce will speak in ten minutes.
As I said, the situation remains exactly as 1 described it yesterday. In the interim, I ask the House to consider the possibility of agreeing to make a reference to a committee so the matter can be studied and this decision examined. Members of all parties can make their representations. Then, upon receiving the report of the committee, the House can deal with this very important problem in a direct way and make its declarations directly, rather than in the indirect manner in which we now seem to be dealing with this rather important problem.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to your suggestion, it is a matter that I am prepared to take under advisement. As you so very clearly put it, it is a suggestion, and 1 am prepared to agree. 1 want to consult my colleagues concerning it, but it is a matter I will be prepared to consider.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, like the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker), I would like to indicate our interest in examining your suggestions. It may be that the House will want to act at some future time in having the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In the meantime, as you have indicated, the status quo is maintained, which we understand to be the decision of the House as interpreted by the Chair yesterday- an interpretation with which we agreed. We have no objection, now that the principle has been established and in light of the fact that the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), who was recognized yesterday and who is not in the House today, that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) be given the floor in the normal course. The principle has been established, and until it is changed we in this party propose to operate on that principle. We thank you for your suggestion.
70

October 11, 1979
The A ddress- Mr. F. Roy


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we too are prepared to consider and, indeed, to consider favourably the suggestion you have made for a reference to a committee.
In effect, what you are suggesting is that the various aspects of what it means to be a group or a party in this House be considered separately, rather than assuming that one motion settles all the facets of the matter. We think that is worth while. We are prepared to enter into such discussions with the other House leaders for the purpose of considering a committee reference. In the meantime, we are pleased that the present issue is being settled amicably and that we shall now hear from the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy).
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks on the subject under consideration. Yesterday I spoke of the dignity of Parliament, but I stayed up quite late, and tried to get to the bottom of things: the first principle mentioned in Beauchesne is that of parliamentary law. I simply want to read two sentences.
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament; these are: to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority.
So today everybody seems more understanding and in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you have made a suggestion which seems acceptable, namely that the whole question be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in the light of the information you have provided and with reference to a ruling made in 1963. I am therefore led to believe that we shall proceed as usual and I feel that this solution will promote harmony and allow Parliament to operate normally and efficiently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker).


APPENDIX TO HANSARD-LIST OF MEASURES TABLED THIS DAY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I tabled a few minutes ago a list of legislation, in both official languages, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2). I neglected to ask the House whether, for easy reference, it would be appropriate to have it appended to Hansard of this day. I ask now if that could be done.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For above list, see Appendix.]


CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Mr. Speaker:: I just wish to pay tribute to my distinguished predecessor, Speaker Alan Macnaughton, for the excellent

reasoning of 1963 which I have commended to the House for consideration.


Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me at this time. There is no doubt, anyway, that because this is my maiden speech in the House, my colleagues of the House have looked forward to it for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, words of welcome were addressed to the new hon. members which made me very happy; I want to thank those who expressed their welcome in my behalf though I must say that, as far as I am concerned, I had a feeling, at one point, that the words of welcome took on a slightly different tone.
That having been said, Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate you most sincerely on your appointment to the very important office which presiding over the business of the House constitutes. The experience acquired in that post over the last few years and the way in which you assumed that important role have made of you a man of high repute who has deserved the trust and esteem of all his colleagues on both sides of the House. I want to assure you of my wholehearted co-operation in ensuring that our parliamentary business is performed in an orderly and dignified fashion, in the better interest of our fellow-citizens, and with the utmost respect for our parliamentary institution.
Mr. Speaker, please also allow me to pay tribute to and thank, as I should, the voters, men and women of Beauce for the confidence they have shown me once again, because after having given me three mandates to the Quebec National Assembly, the Beauce riding electors did not hesitate to give me a first mandate to the House of Commons and this with a sweeping majority.
That is to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am well aware of the resulting responsibilities and that I intend to assume them fully with my modest means, in close co-operation with my fellow members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, yet remembering that my predecessors, Mr. Real Caouette and Mr. Andre Fortin, have always been equal to their task. I would be remiss were I not to take this privileged occasion to congratulate my colleagues from Abitibi (Mr. Caouette), Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), Rimouski (Mr. Allard), and Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) who did well in keeping the confidence of their electors. Their political beliefs, their tenacity, it should be mentioned, as well as their loyalty and their almost limitless devotion to duty have succeeded in triumphing once again over the electoral machine of the traditional political groups. The dean of our group, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who has been a member of parliament since 1962 and who acted as leader of our parliamentary wing until last May 22 deserves all our consideration.
Finally, I want to thank most sincerely the half million voters who gave us their support at the last election and who
October 11, 1979

allowed our party to rank second in Quebec. For us, that is the promise of a great future. It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Thirty-first Parliament, to congratulate the new Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) for his victory at the last May 22 election. It certainly takes an extraordinary capacity to succeed in co-ordinating the forces of that party whose history was too often made of disputes and divisions.
I also thank the former prime minister who is now leader of the loyal opposition of Her Majesty and who unfortunately is not here, for having occupied with dignity and courage during so many years the high functions of government leader. I wish to pay tribute as well to the new Governor General of this country and to his wife for assuming with vigour and integrity the heavy responsibility as ultimate guardian of our traditions and institutions. He will know how to use, I am convinced, his exclusive and reserved right to be advised, to advise and to recommend.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with deep emotion to the reading of the government program for this session. The speech was well drafted, from the handicapped to the youth, from energy to the merchant navy, not to mention the traditional new vision: everything was there. The one thing missing was their undertaking to lower taxes. But in that respect, Mr. Speaker, 1 suspect the government is keeping this issue for the budget speech. To proceed with a good analysis of that speech, we must compare it with the present economic situation in this country. The actual situation in fact amounts to an understanding of two basic mathematical operations.
During the last ten years, unemployment has doubled. Bureaucrats have doubled and the public debt has quadrupled. We have seen productivity divided by two, same thing for the growth rate, the rate of inflation was multiplied by two as was the number of man-days lost due to strikes, public expenses were multiplied by four and the deficit of our trade balance was multiplied by ten. Whichever way you size up our economic performance, Mr. Speaker, the outlook is bleak. Yet, after having listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday and to the questions put by members of the official opposition yesterday and this morning, in my opinion we are forgetting very rapidly that in the last 60 years this country had some 50 years of Liberal government; the last 11 years with the Liberals gave us the bad economic situation we now have. In those 60 years, the Conservative party governed Canada for barely ten years. We have to acknowledge reality, Mr. Speaker, and we should not duck away from it; we will have to work with sincerity and determination. We will have to act with straightforwardness and loyalty, and say things as they are.
In an international economy, characterized by a lack of resources, we have achieved a feat, here in Canada, that is of constantly decreasing the standard of living of our fellow
The Address-Mr. F. Roy
Canadians, and this, Mr. Speaker, in a country which has the largest reservoir of resources in the world. That is one of the economic aspects which best depicts the present situation.
Considering that Canada is one of the countries with the largest debt in the world, that Canada is the only one among industrialized countries in the international context which has to borrow to pay the interests on its debt, that during the last ten years, the proportion of our exports of raw materials has risen, and that we have to borrow to be able to restore the balance of payments, when one considers all of these things, Mr. Speaker, it is a sign that we live in difficult times. It is not without reason that a few strove to shift the interests of the nation towards other problems, at a time when the national economy is on the brink of bankruptcy.
It is normal to see scapegoats popping up and that is how I consider all those appeals to national unity, particularly when I realize that those who make them did everything they could to create the problems. Divide and rule, they said, and you see the result.
On the political level, we inherit a country that suffered from a slow but progressive erosion of its civil liberties. Newspapers reported peculiar rumours about thefts, illegal entries, property destruction but no one took the trouble to dig up those incidents. A foggy notion of national unity, never defined but supporting an incompetent power, has been used as an excuse. The greatest victory of men, the fact that "those who wield power cannot do so without the assent of their peers" is a famous historic saying. The feeling that "those who wield power cannot do so without the assent of their peers" had simply been thrown away!
Thomas Jefferson said, during the discussions on the drafting of Virginia's statutes: "To force people to contribute their money to the propagation of an ideology which is not theirs is, to me, an act of tyranny".
What is happening? Crown corporations, states monopolies, private monopolies are subscribing enormous amounts for the referendum battle; apparently, a secretariat has been organized with public funds. Nobody protested or worried about it. However, Jefferson was very clear. There was and there still is an erosion of our most basic liberties.
This phenomenon is such, Mr. Speaker, that some hon. members in this House have interpreted-and I do say "interpreted"-our absence from the striking committee as the non-existence of our party, an absence due to a change to the rules of the House following a mere proposal. No parliamentary procedure expert realized that without unanimous consent, a notion which exists in all parliaments-and the federal parliament remains the best guardian of the British parliamentary traditions-that without unanimous consent, the Standing Orders have been contravened, and I refer hon. members to pages 7153 and 7154 of the Hansard of June 28, 1977.

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. F. Roy
However, the only ones concerned were Social Crediters who, it must be said, gathered all their votes in Quebec and, in so doing, obtained more votes than there were voters in six other provinces. By bringing in more than 513,000 ballots in the province of Quebec, members of the Social Credit Party of Canada obtained more votes than the total of votes in Nova Scotia where 11 members of Parliament were elected democratically. The members of the Social Credit Party of Canada obtained more votes than the total of the votes in New Brunswick, which added up to 337,000 and which resulted in the democratic election of 11 members of Parliament. The Social Credit Party of Canada obtained as many votes in Quebec alone as the total of the popular vote in Manitoba. With 513,000 votes in Manitoba, 14 members of Parliament were elected democratically.
1 could go even further and talk about Prince Edward Island, and also about Saskatchewan, where 489,000 votes elected fourteen members to the House of Commons, that is fewer votes than the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada obtained. In the case of Newfoundland, the figure is
201,000.	Let us make a quick mathematical operation. I have taken the liberty to do so since this seems to be the popular thing to do these days. Therefore, if we divide the total of the votes obtained by the Progressive Conservative Party by the number of Progressive Conservative members, we find that each member of this minority party-as we know that no party holds a majority in this House-represents 32,000 voters who exercised their right to vote. As for the Liberals, they represent in the House of Commons an average of 40,000 votes.


An hon. Member:: That is a lot!


Fabien Roy: It is a little better. The members of the New Democratic Party represent in the House of Commons 78,800 votes each. However, the five members of the Social Credit Party of Canada each represent 105,000 votes. Mr. Speaker, that is 330 per cent more than what each Conservative member represents in the House. Were we to calculate the proportional representation of the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada in relation to the vote obtained by the Conservative members, we would be entitled to 16 members in the House instead of five. Nobody would then question the recognition of our party or the privileges which it should obtain. If I did the same calculation with the votes given to the Liberal members, we would get 13 members in the House. This is a higher number than the one mentioned in the only provision on political parties granting an additional allowance to the party leader. Mr. Speaker, one must be careful when attempting to regulate democracy. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House since it is one o'clock.
(Mr. Roy (Beauce).]


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.
Fabien Roy: When the House took recess for the lunch break, Mr. Speaker, I had just started to deal with something I consider of utmost importance because it relates to our civil liberties. As a matter of fact, our civil liberties have been so much trampled on that we do not realize the extent of their erosion. Since when, in Canada, does Parliament have the authority to rule on the existence of parties in the House? When, before today, did Parliament ever assume this right? Never. But the climate is such that it dares do so. This is a serious matter and gives one food for thought.
Before his appointment to the American Senate, Senator Irwin had been chief justice of the supreme court of his state. He had been one of the first American judges to have a convicted murderer released because he had felt that the rules of procedure had not been adhered to and the accused's rights respected. In support of his action, he had stated that what really matters is not the final verdict rendered in a criminal case but the way this verdict came about, for it reflects on civilization as a whole.
What matters here is not the existence of two, three, four or five political parties, but the right of the people to join them. One party more or less is of no consequence, but the manner in which it appears or disappears bears witness to the depth and value of our democratic liberties. And what is the first principle of the parliamentary right? It is to protect the minorities in the House against all possible abuses from the majority. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today, where attempts are made against the political choice of the people.
Mr. Speaker, in our political system the fact that five, six or twenty members of the Social Credit Party of Canada sit in the House is basically a transitory phenomenon on the political level, just as it is for 60, 80 or 120 members of the Progressive Conservative Party, but the way these five, six or ten members of the Social Credit party are treated in the House is concrete evidence of the respect and consideration the government has for the right of the people to elect their own representatives. The fact that the Progressive Conservative Party acted that way in this affair came as no surprise since it has always despised the Quebec voters and still does. This is certainly unfortunate but needs not be proven any more. The fact that no Liberal noticed anything is just an exchange of courtesies.
October 11, 1979

I am upset and concerned to see the reaction of the New Democratic Party which, for some years now, has been sitting next to us as a third party. I can still hear the warnings given by that exceptional parliamentarian, Mr. John Diefenbaker. In 1958, after his overwhelming victory, he recommended that a member from the CCF should sit on the select committee although it only had eight representatives in the House. And I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) because he is not merely a New Democrat, he is a democrat. Socially speaking, Mr. Speaker, our country is divided region against region, province against province, Francophones against Anglophones. And in the last years they even managed to exacerbate the tensions among those who first settled here.
And these are not the only problems. In the area of technology and science, Canada is one of the countries which depend most on the importation of knowledge in order to progress. Once we become aware of the direct impact of higher productivity on the growth of the gross national product and once we know that higher productivity is directly proportional to the increases in scientific knowledge and technical knowhow, then we suddenly realize that two American companies, IBM and GM, are spending more on research and development than we do in Canada at any level, either private or public.
Mr. Speaker, that is the situation in the social, political and scientific fields. Such is the state of our country. A country showing a deficit in every aspect, facing bankruptcy, socially divided, depending on other countries for technology and capital, a country where basic liberties are gradually eroded. We must analyse the government program with this situation in mind.
The speech is not moving any more. It is unfortunately poor, sad and meaningless. It is in keeping with the preceding attitude-talk problems away and try to solve everything through another series of programs. It is a mistake, for the problem is internal. It is through what was omitted that this speech is important. In the economic field, where the government has the budgetary, fiscal and monetary powers, we might rightly have expected a policy presenting the phases of the Canadian takeover of our country. We might have expected a policy establishing phase by phase and sector by sector the withdrawal of this intrusive bureaucratic government which in trying to solve every problem is depriving us of everthing. We might have justly expected a Fiscal policy providing for more justice and the sharing of government revenue sources, a less backward fiscal structure, the abolition of the fiscal privileges enjoyed by the rich people.
Mr. Speaker, during the last 10 years the portion of fiscal revenues paid by corporations has constantly diminished and the portion paid by individuals continually increased. Knowing
The Address-Mr. F. Roy
the strictly regressive nature of the fiscal system for individuals in this country, a change would certainly have been appreciated. When we realize that the monetary policies favour only the great lending institutions, we can see who is really governing, who has the real powers. Are the powers vested in this House, in the Canadian Parliament, or have they been transferred to some other authorities? We will be able to check within the next few days, few weeks or few months where is the real power in the country, and to know whether those who have been elected by the people have the real power or if those who had the power in the past have handed it over to others.
We would have liked to hear at least one political statement announcing some measures against inflation, this scourge of modern society which is extraordinarily profitable to banks and other loan companies which always benefit from indexation. On the question of energy, Mr. Speaker, we would have liked to hear whether the government is going to follow the tripartite recommendations following the studies made on the tidal power program of the Bay of Fundy and is ready to give impetus to the building of a tidal power station generating electricity in the maritimes in order to reduce the cost of petroleum and dependence on it as a source of energy in this important area of the country. We would have liked to hear that they were going to launch an important study on the fantastic energetic potential of the Mackenzie Valley, so that the western provinces do not depend any more on petroleum and gas for their primary energy, as these are non-renewable hydrocarbons which have an efficiency of 38 to 40 per cent only.
We would have liked to hear that they are ready to study the possibility of Finding replacement energy sources other than petroleum, electricity or methanol, which are needed for our transport in order to reduce our oil consumption by 50 per cent.
But no, nothing-a collection of used cliches repeated ad infinitum as if isolating ourselves from the reality of those problems in a distorted price structure by repeating the same pious wishes was very simply going to exorcize them. I heard the Liberal party talk about Petro-Canada as if Petro-Canada was supposed to be the energy policy, as if only a government corporation was to be the energy policy in itself. May we be permitted to ask ourselves serious questions about the seriousness of such statements and assertions.
Mr. Speaker, in the political area where liberties are flouted, in a political context where institutions are being questioned in their very foundations, the government does not announce anything. Not even intentions. As to the liberty of access to information legislation the least we can expect is that it will at least match the one that exists in the country to the south.
We would also have expected the electoral respect for rights and liberties to be maintained because that is the measure of a country. That is, Mr. Speaker, the price this country is starting

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. F. Roy
to pay for the erosion of the liberties that characterize our society.
I strongly urge this government to reflect on this question- it is easy for them. They only have to read over the speeches of their former leader, that great advocate of liberties, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. And with respect to relations between provinces, regions or with the various groups in this country, we would have expected to see new measures. After the aggressivity and the confrontation of the former Liberal government we get silence. We need a clear statement of the manifest intention to stand by the rights and liberties of people, groups, cultures so as to eliminate in this country politicians who live on our national and cultural, economic and social differences, those merchants of equality who are only sowers of economic ruins, budget and trade deficits and bureaucratic controls.
I am concerned about the silence in the speech in this respect. I hope this is not an indication on the part of the government that it has managed to appropriate too, after others, the theme of some "national unity" as a palliative to the real problems, a cure-all to incompetence, as a way of getting power, with only the forms being different. In the scientific and technical area, we would have also expected a specific statement indicating what percentage of the GNP would go to research and development. But again, nothing on this subject. There should be a desire to capitalize on our specific assets, a concern to develop and to further the knowledge and the technology in areas where we have a natural advantage stemming from the very nature of our country, its size and its resources, program aimed at making us world leaders in the following areas: transport and communications, petrochemistry, forestry biomass, oceans and fisheries, food industry, mining technology, electro-metallurgy and electrochemistry.
Mr. Speaker, I realize, to my great surprise, that 1 am a citizen of the second largest country in the world, with the biggest per capita reservoir of natural, agricultural and marine resources in the world, and that the major leaders of this country are either politicians without any vision or impostors trumpeting that ever foggy notion of "national unity". I have to admit that this narrow vision has now touched upon the domain of external affairs, which was not the case before, and I compliment the previous government for this. I am forced to admit that our foreign policy in regions as important as the Middle East is determined by electoral considerations. We are about to discard thirty years of patient diplomatic work in these countries. I am forced to see and to deplore that the aid we will be providing to poorer countries will be based on criteria of profitability. Mr. Speaker, one can measure the greatness of a man or a nation by its attitude toward the poor and the weak. The recent policy statements made by the present government are a sad thing. We are going backwards.

Smallness is becoming a virtue in the second largest country in the world.
Before ending my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on the amendment motion submitted by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). We have made known and repeated our position on this precise point. We have even made public, on September 9, the document in which it is clearly explained. We said, and I am referring to the news release, the official document of our party, dated September 6, that Petro-Canada would have played its role in the negotiations with the producing countries if it had become necessary. It was our position at the time. We will not discuss it again. But I would like to add that before doing anything with Petro-Canada, the new government will have to give us a complete statement on its energy policy. On this subject, after extensive discussion and consideration, the members of my party have adopted this attitude which we do not intend to change. Before anything is done with Petro-Canada, we will have to know in precise terms the energy policy of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, it is not too late to make a wise decision and to develop the means. I am almost finished, Mr. Speaker, if 1 may ask for one more minute-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The easiest way would probably be to obtain unanimous consent; I am sure that hon. members will allow the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) to finish his remarks.
Will the House allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauce has the floor.


Fabien Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief and that is no electoral promise.
Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to take good decisions and to formulate efficient and drastic measures. It is very important to take up the future's challenge and that is why, in concluding my first speech in the House, I call on parliamentarians of all parties, and particularly on those who bear the responsibility of governing the country, to act with statesmanship. Mr. Speaker, you can count on my collaboration and on that of my colleagues of the Social Credit party. We are determined to fight and to work towards the achievement of a political ideal which will enable all the inhabitants of this great country to benefit from an economy of abundance in the greatest respect of their dignity and freedom.
October 11, 1979


Mr. Bill Wightman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me so early after the speeches by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am grateful, albeit a little awed, to follow those distinguished parliamentarians. May 1 also thank the Prime Minister for his expression of confidence in naming me Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.
Some weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, 1 took the opportunity to tell you in a personal way how, as a member of the televiewing audience, I had come to admire the manner in which you perceived and discharged your responsibilities as Speaker of the previous Parliament. Today, as a new and untried member of Parliament, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express those same sentiments both formally and publicly.
The tenor of your opening remarks reflected the kind consideration extended to new members by all members of the House of Commons staff, and however long any of us are permitted to serve here I trust we will never forget the importance of the role played by those good people.
You have reminded us in the House of your dependency on the good will and support of all members. I would want my first undertaking as a parliamentarian to be in the form of an assurance to you that 1 will endeavour to meet the standards you have outlined. Should I falter I have no doubt that you will correct me, and I only hope that any faltering on my part will not belie my fundamental respect for all members of this House. Neophyte that I am, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the mutual respect we must have for one another in this House flows from the fact that, regardless of political affiliation, we have a strong common bond drawn from the fact that each of us is privileged to represent a constituency of fine people whom God has blessed with Canadian citizenship or Canadian residency.
Perhaps those outside Canada would wonder why we are loath to refer to anyone as a "typical Canadian". As Canadians speaking one to another our reluctance needs no verbalization, because to be a Canadian is to be aware of the wondrous diversity of this land and of our quiet pride in it. The concept of mon pays and, indeed, not re pays, is central to what differentiates us from the rest of the world.
I was pleased by the manner in which the throne speech made reference to the many communities in Canada. The prior concerns of the people of Scarborough West are for their homes and families, and rightfully so, for the home and family constitute the basic building block of any society. It is understandable, too, that their next concern should be for the immediate community, for it is in that context that most of the day to day relationships with others are experienced. However, sir, let no one misguidedly think that the people I represent lack a sense of that larger community which is Canada, and let
The Address-Mr. Wightman
no one be mistaken as to their love for Canada and all of its citizens.
That underlying love and concern for the nation always comes through in my conversations with the people of Scarborough West, irrespective of the issues we may be discussing or the mood of that discussion. The issue may seemingly be local, such as with railway grade separation, but the underlying concern is for the safety of our children. The issue may be the erosion of the Scarborough bluffs, which also is seemingly local, but the concern is for the preservation of the natural beauty of this country as well as for the very real threat that is posed to the homes of some of our people.
In Scarborough West the idea of government encouraging individuals to decide for themselves the direction their lives should take is welcomed, as are the attempts by the federal government to create an environment which is most appropriate to the achievement of those goals. If it be dogmatic to hold to the belief that this is the proper function of government, then so be it. Put me down as a dogmatist.
Let me for a moment, if I may, relate the concepts of the less pervasive role for government and of enabling people to realize their own aspirations, and let me relate those concepts to the field of labour-management relations.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised yesterday when the Leader of the New Democratic Party concluded a 40-minute address without having made reference to the Canadian Labour Congress or the Public Service Alliance of Canada from which his party draws heavily for its financial support. Nor do I recall specific reference to the working people of Canada, who comprise a constituency for whom he sometimes purports to be the sole spokesman.
Before my entry into politics I had the intense satisfaction of working co-operatively with the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, the executive committee of the congress, and the executive council of the Canadian Manufacturers Association in an effort to identify some of the areas wherein representatives of organized labour and management could find agreement. Everyone involved in the exercise took a realistic attitude born out of personal experience. We were under no illusions as to how much we could expect to accomplish. By the same token we were convinced it was in the national interest for us to put aside temporarily those issues wherein agreement was unlikely to be found and, instead, focus our attention and energies on those issues, or portions of issues, where agreement was likely. It was our hope that we might assist the Government of Canada in its policy-making decisions by identifying for the government these areas of common ground.
The result of that effort was a submission to the then prime minister of Canada, now the Leader of the Opposition, signed jointly by the presidents of those two organizations. To our knowledge it was the first time in the history of the CLC and the CMA that a joint submission was made to the Government of Canada. The points made in that submission might have seemed unimportant or insignificant to some, but they were of

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Wightman
consequence to the authors, and of even greater consequence, in our view, was the fact that a common understanding had been reached irrespective of the import of the specific issues. The fact that the specific recommendations were in large part ignored was not as disheartening as the lack of encouragement for our efforts.
The throne speech emphasizes the fact that this government is committed to consultation rather than confrontation. I see in the totality of the throne speech a thrust which recognizes that consultation, to be productive, must take many forms. One of the most important forms could be bilateral discussions between organized labour and management if it is the will of the parties of interest to enter into such discussions. 1 would want to emphasize the latter part of that statement because labour and management in Canada should understand that if they decide to take such an initiative the government will view its proper role as being to facilitate their efforts, not to dictate to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hannum Wightman: It seems to me that this is a time for healing in the field of labour-management relations as much as any other aspect of our national life. It is a time for recognizing the practical limitations of collective bargaining and the reality that progress may be necessarily slow. But surely on the occasion of this newly constituted government, it is also an occasion when we can start from the presumption of a clean slate in terms of the relationships between government, labour and management. I say this notwithstanding full recognition of the particular dispute going on at the Montreal port. We dare not ignore the past, but for the present it seems to me that we can start from an assumption that the parties aspire not only to the common good of Canada, but to the respect and confidence of each other. Nor is it too much to expect the parties to recognize that just as the accommodative process of collective bargaining requires mutual understanding, respect and confidence can only come about as a result of mutuality of effort.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I turn to the subject of Petro-Canada. Some of my constituents have expressed concern over the question of security of oil supply, and rightly so. Yet they have been quick to accept that the Government of Canada has every bit as much authority as Petro-Canada to deal with the question of supply. Many of them want a major Canadian oil company owned by Canadians and they want Petro-Canada kept as a strong, operative company.
If my understanding is correct, I can assure my constituents and members opposite that these are precisely the concerns which we anticipate that the task force will address and meet in the context of the report soon to be submitted to us. Moreover, the task force report notwitstanding, they are precisely among the concerns which this government will address and meet.
Given our commitment and given that these two concerns are central to the statements made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the New Democratic

Party, it would appear that these concerns are being met. However, if it is the view of the opposition that Petro-Canada can only be owned by the government and not by the people of Canada, at that point we part company.
Yesterday it was suggested that on this issue the Prime Minister is marching to a non-existent drummer. I want to assure this House that on this issue, as on the range of issues dealt with in the throne speech, I hear the same beat. I march gladly and proudly with the Prime Minister of Canada, not only because I am convinced that it is in the best interest of Canadians to do so, but because I suspect that the beat we hear is not so much a drum beat as the heart beat of a nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, as the roll call of people introducing themselves into this throne speech begins to accumulate, I am very pleased that you have occupied the chair when you did so that I may be allowed some small nuance of original tact to introduce myself; and may I be the first, sir, to compliment you on your election to the position of Deputy Speaker. I know that you will provide the same kind of conscientious, careful watch over this House as does the permanent Speaker.
I must confess at this juncture to being a little nervous, having listened to the debate regarding the recognition of the Social Credit party. It brings back recurring nightmares of my previous state in life when I occupied one of the more exclusive associations, being the only Liberal in the Manitoba legislature. I can say that if the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) thought he had trouble getting recognized, he should try getting an office once in a while; then he will know that he is in real trouble. However, I do strike a sympathetic chord for his concern about the necessity of ensuring that, no matter how small the number in a party, it is in many cases the ideas and principles that one represents that counts. We in our group certainly have no hesitation or compulsion in recognizing the right of the Social Credit members to speak their minds.
I would like to pay my respects to the mover and seconder of this motion. They set a very high standard of elocution and commitment which all of us who are in the freshman class will find it difficult to measure up to. I must confess to being somewhat intrigued by the interesting discussion of the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) as he weaved in and out of a very fulsome praise for the orchard trees of the Niagara peninsula speckled throughout with fulsome praise for his leader. I do not know what position the hon. member took in the last Conservative convention, but I am not sure whether he was more in favour of the flora or the fauna in this case. I think that he was trying to send out a political signal for all of those to read.
I would also like to pay my respects to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) although he is not in his seat. He was kind enough to single me out yesterday, but probably his misguided jab is an indication of what we can expect in the future, that he is partly right and mostly wrong. He is partly right in saying that
October 11, 1979

one of my ambitions as a member of this party is to be mindful of the future, but I would suggest to him that that is the golden objective of 113 Liberals. The definition of being a Liberal is to be concerned with the future.
We are not worried about how our own leader is concerned about the future but about how the leader of the government is concerned about the future. That is our concern. I would only remind the Prime Minister of the scripture that can be borrowed from the Book of Job. Being one of the few Liberals from western Canada I would remind him of the story of the messenger who came to report to Job that his cattle were stolen and his barns were burned and who said that he alone had escaped to bring the terrible news. I am one of those who escaped to tell the Prime Minister the terrible news.
May I begin by recounting a story that was fairly common in the Manitoba legislature. One of the legends that was handed down through a succession of premiers told of a defeated premier who handed his successor three envelopes, saying that he had kept the envelopes on hand for such a contingency. He told the new premier to use the envelopes very carefully at times when his government found itself in real trouble. It was not very long until that happened. When the new premier opened the first envelope it contained one simple message: "Blame the previous government." Mr. Speaker, this government is obviously in serious trouble already because it has already followed that advice.
It was not too long before that government got into trouble again. The premier opened the second envelope and found the message: "Blame the other levels of government." That seemed to be good advice and he followed it. I suggest that the new government opposite is very close to doing the same as it tries to work out an agreement on oil prices. I think we can expect to see the first minister of this land saying, within a week or two, "It is the fault of those other fellows."
It was not too long before the government in the story found itself in trouble a third time. The new premier opened the third envelope. The message was again very simple; it read: "Start preparing three envelopes." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is very close to the necessity of preparing that third envelope for itself.
I had intended to follow the tradition followed by the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne debate of describing to members some of the glories and virtues of my constituency. That would be especially appropriate at this time as Winnipeg has become a favourite place to hold meetings. I am afraid that if I were to begin to describe the conditions in the province of Manitoba and my constituency, however, hon. members opposite would find the discussion a little sobering, and I would not want to depress them or shake them from their present state of euphoria.
For the last few years Manitoba has been suffering a very strange and debilitating malady called "conservative government"; in fact, some people have called it a severe case of cirrhosis of the government organ brought about by an
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
extreme case of conservatism. Others have called it "Lyon's fanatic syndrome". The symptoms are very clear-economic anemia, stunted growth, impairment of the faculty to listen, political constipation and a lack of the will to move, to make decisions or to lead. For those who may be more clinically minded the statistics tell the story.
Since the Conservatives took over in Manitoba the province has had the lowest growth rate of any in Canada. It has lost more people in out-migration than at any time in the last 13 years. It is the only province in the country with an absolute decline in population. There has been a constant decrease in the amount of health and social services available to the poor and the elderly. This is all done in the name of this new religion that is seizing the land-this new religion called privatization, or restraint, or restructuring, or neo-conservatism-call it what you may. I had hoped that once the election was over we could quarantine that disease within the province of Manitoba. 1 thought that the Conservatives wanted to experiment and might damage a few provinces, but surely would not try to do that to the whole country.
During the summer there were some signs that certain ministers began to pick up that same strange fever that was all too common in Manitoba. I thought that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) had probably taken a side trip to New York and had seen the Broadway show called "Sweeney Todd" and, being very current and fashionable, had applied to himself the title of "Mad Slasher of Wellington Street". I thought this might be part of the new philosophy and new theology that we have to apply, though I felt that those erstwhile characters called "Red Tories" would prevail and be able to restrain their more exuberant right-wing colleagues. In this I was wrong, for the throne speech shows very clearly who won the day in the Conservative caucus. It is not the Progressive Conservatives; it is the regression conservatives who are running the show with this government.
This suggests a basic unwillingness to look at the issues of inequality and social injustice in this country and an equal distrust of government as a positive, effective force to right those kinds of wrongs. It is all right for them to fool around with that particular, curious malady in the provincial context, but when they begin to prescribe those same medicines on a national scale the implications become far more serious.
As I read the throne speech and listen to hon. members opposite speak on it, I am reminded of a line from the play "The Rainmaker" which dealt with the evangelical preacher who was so busy preaching what was right that he forgot what was good. That is the problem with the Conservatives in this country, Mr. Speaker; they are so busy preaching what is right that they forget what is good.
I was particularly struck by the line in the Speech from the Throne which said that we can have unity in diversity. That may be true, but I would ask the government if you can have unity in depression. Can you have unity in disparity? Can you have unity in divisiveness, because that is what the tone and content of the Speech from the Throne indicates?

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
The clear, underlying threat in the document before us in this debate is that this is a government that intends to govern for only part of the people-the powerful and the privileged. If you happen to be weak, this government has nothing to say to you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: There are some throw-away lines in the speech, Mr. Speaker. The government promises to study some of the problems of the aging. I think Parliament is turning into one big study session. For all their antagonism towards academics, the government seems to have a proclivity for getting back to the classroom. I suggest these studies are simply throw-aways. We do not need them. The real issue and the one they are not prepared to face is how to share economic costs and benefits among individuals and groups in this society. It is very clear from the throne speech that they are loading up the costs and limiting the benefits.
In his introduction the hon. member for Erie said that this is a government that wants to free people in order to enhance liberty. That was a high-sounding phrase but he forgot the other part of the corollary. He neglected to say that liberty also comes when you begin to knock down social and economic barriers, not build them up as has been done in the Speech from the Throne.
There are millions of people in this country who are forgotten people; they are ignored, neglected and even spurned. This government does not speak to them, Mr. Speaker; all it does is build the barriers higher and create deeper divisions.
As an example, 1 should like to refer to a cornerstone of their economic policy, the jewel of their proposals, the campaign springboard that swung them into victory. I refer to the mortgage credit plan. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) has said that this will benefit 3,300,000 people and give them a stake in the country. He has said that it will stimulate jobs and bring wondrous benefits. I would ask him what program benefits the other 40 per cent of the people in this country who rent accommodation. They receive no direct benefits whatsoever under this plan. If I understood the minister, he defended the program by saying: "We did not promise them anything so why should we care about them?" In other words, the whole equation of the government is that they only care about those to whom a promise was given and everyone else can be forgotten.
When we examine the housing needs in this country, Mr. Speaker, we see that the full pressure of cost is spread across the whole spectrum of society and is felt more keenly by those who are renters. Let me give some examples for members opposite. How can members of Parliament from Edmonton go back there and tell renters they are being ignored when 41 per cent of the tenants and renters in Edmonton must pay over 30 per cent of their income for accommodation and only 15 per cent of the home owners are in the same situation? For the city of Winnipeg, 39 per cent of renters pay over 30 per cent of

their income for accommodation while only 12 per cent of home owners do. Now I come to the city of Toronto; 25 per cent of Toronto renters pay over 30 per cent of their income for accommodation compared to 13 per cent of home owners. By that kind of logic, if you are really trying to serve those in need you try to assist those who are in the greatest need. Obviously something has been forgotten in this plan.
Let me now look at the position of the elderly in Canada. Sixty-five per cent of the elderly own their own homes but only 6 per cent of the elderly hold a mortgage on those homes.


An hon. Member:: The tax credit will help.


Lloyd Axworthy: The member opposite says the tax credit is going to help. It is $67 next year. His government will be responsible for an oil price increase which will raise his heating bill by $200 to $300. That is not a very good trade, Mr. Speaker. That is what you call a Tory bargain-$60 for $300. If that is the way the pie will be cut, members over there will not be around very long.
We heard a lot about women in the throne speech. The problems of women are to be studied. But what about women who come under the mortgage credit plan? Does the government realize only 8.5 per cent of women in this country have homes with mortgages? The average income for women is only $2,300 compared to an average for a male of close to $13,000. With those figures none of them will be eligible for the full benefits of the mortgage plan.
What about the regions, Mr. Speaker? Is this a program that fits the regions equally? How can this consensus building be justified when it is found out that some provinces are treated far more unfairly than others? I want to see the first minister at his first conference explaining to the Premier of Quebec that while that province has 27 per cent of the population, only 18 per cent of the benefits are received under this great mortgage credit plan. The same thing holds true in the maritimes.
Perhaps we should talk about those who have the most serious need. I refer to the low income earners in society. For accommodation 51 per cent of senior citizens pay over 30 per cent of their income, 51 per cent of single parents pay over 30 per cent of their income, and 37 per cent of single and attached people pay over 30 per cent of their income. Those are the ones who are having trouble with housing costs.
It was not for lack of thinking. A cabinet document has been prepared by officials. They said "You can solve the problems. You can have a tax credit plan and a shelter allowance too for about the same cost". It was not for lack of proposals or prescriptions, it was for lack of commitment and lack of caring.
I have a proposal. The first minister was very kind to us all in the opposition. He said, "Come up with a good amendment; show us something that makes sense and we will accept it." I will give him something that makes sense. Let us include a
October 11, 1979

shelter allowance as part of that credit plan. Let us do something for the tenants in this country. Let us do something for those in real need. Let us attach a shelter allowance to that tax credit program. Let us show how much members really care. That seems to me to be a fairly logical sentiment. It is one that we have talked about and urged upon this government. I say adopt that proposal, Mr. Speaker, and they will have our support. If they do that it will be the first time the government will show that it is not trying to divide society but instead trying to spread the benefits around.
The problem with this particular program is not only who gets immediate benefits, it is also what we are giving up for the future. The Prime Minister says he is very concerned about the future. How can he be concerned about the future when it is foreclosed? It is foreclosed by committing an expenditure of $2.3 billion or more, totally using up all discretionary income and having nothing left in the purse for any other programs. If someone comes along and says he is concerned, as many Canadians are, about the problem of safety in the streets, what does this government have to offer? Nothing. The money has been spent. Perhaps someone will come along and ask if we can do something for public transit, and we ask the question what can we do to help get better transportation in this country? But we find there is nothing left in the till. We have foreclosed the mortgage. We have spent the money. We have locked ourselves in to the commitments for the future and we have nothing left.
A commitment has been made, Mr. Speaker, and these people do not know how to get out of it. They are going to wriggle and wrangle, and in the meantime the only people they will hurt are the people in this country. To conclude on that note, if they have not gone far enough, they are designing a program that is unequal in its benefits and illogical in its economics; but they have decided to give the coup de grace. Now they are talking about getting rid of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They are not satisfied with simply using up all the money in housing, they are going to get rid of the very agency which the federal government has used to make sure that there are proper programs for social groups across Canada. This is all in the name not of any logical reason, but in this new theology, this new religion, in the name of privatization. You develop a certain blindness when you become so concerned about what is right that you forget what is good. There are many other examples that one could use. For instance, the cutbacks in Canada Works which has led to serious unemployment problems; the UIC cutbacks, all in the area of picking on those who are least able to defend themselves.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals started it.


Lloyd Axworthy: I want to spend a moment or two on what is an even more surprising betrayal, to my mind. It is surprising and perhaps ironic. It is a real betrayal of western Canada by this government. It is surprising because this has been the basis of its support for so many years. Western Canadians for their own reasons have said, "We believe the Conservatives
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
will serve our interests". The benches are full of members from western Canada. We have had Tory MPs who have made careers out of lambasting Liberal governments for their neglect of the west. We have a very clear case now of western Canada being on the verge of a major economic breakthrough, and this government is going to pull the rug out from under its feet.
We have talked a lot in this House about the issue of Petro-Canada, but the one thing that we have not talked about is what it means to western Canadians. Petro-Canada is the largest Canadian-owned oil company. Not only is it the largest, it is the only one located in Calgary and it has 2,000 employees. All the rest of the big multinationals that members opposite are giving up are located in the east. It is the only oil firm that has invested millions in research and development of new technologies in liquefied natural gas and in drilling in the Arctic. This research and development gives western Canada the opportunity to develop new technology that can be applied throughout the world. But who is selling it off? It is those western Tories who are selling it off. They are the ones who are betraying their own region and giving up on it.
I want them to go back and explain that kind of betrayal. This is the first time the opportunity has come to develop an economic institution which has its roots, foundations and activity centred in western Canada and which can provide an enormous stimulus for various independent western Canadian businessmen. Let me give just one example. One of the rules Petro-Canada works under is that it has a 25 per cent reserve on Crown lands. Its practice in the past was to take that 25 per cent reserve and allocate it to the small independent oil exploration firms in western Canada because they could not afford the upfront money that the big multinationals could provide. They have asked those small independents to form consortiums and they give them the Crown land reserves. They are the ones who for the first time in a long while are being allowed to come into the Arctic development, the Newfoundland development and the other forms of oil development in western Canada. It is Petro-Canada that is enabling them to develop a brand new business class in western Canada. Yet this government is pulling the rug out from under their feet. We have a direct economic betrayal of the best interests of western Canada in their action on Petro-Canada, and they will pay a heavy price for that kind of betrayal.
It does not stop there. With regard to oil pricing there is a danger that one province will be set against the other over who gets the benefits from the oil price. This country cannot long survive if there is an increasing disparity between the have and have-not energy provinces. If this government allows the price of oil to go to the present world level it will pull $460 million out of the economy of my own province of Manitoba, and we cannot survive that kind of reduction. If this first minister thinks he is going to get Peter Lougheed to agree to some other distribution, he has been reading the wrong newspapers and the wrong speeches, because Mr. Lougheed has said very clearly that he is not interested in that kind of distribution. He

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
wants the benefits to stay in one province and one province only.
The opportunities in western Canada to put that capital to work are enormous. It makes one shudder to think of the way we have allowed that money to sit idle for so many years and to think of what we could be doing to improve our transportation system, to modernize and electrify that whole transportation system in western Canada to move our grain to ports and increase the productivity of our grain resource, which will be here long after oil is gone. Yet we allow huge amounts of capital to sit idle because we are not prepared to work out agreements on proper sharing and distribution.
Mr. Lougheed says he is not interested in a resource bank and not prepared to negotiate such a proposal. We need that kind of capital to ensure that there is an opportunity for other forms of resources in western Canada to grow, prosper and flourish. I refer to hydroelectric power and water irrigation which are designed to upgrade the ability of that part of the country to make its resources work for Canada. However, we are not going to get them by the kind of shilly-shallying we have now. Someone has to take the initiative and speak for the entire country. There must be an assertion of a strong national interest because that is the best solution for westerners.
We often hear that same interesting question many of my colleagues heard in the early sixties when they were asked, "What does Quebec want?" Many eastern Canadians and central Canadians are now asking, "What do western Canadians want ?" Unfortunately, all too often the answer comes back in the tones of parochialism and provincialism as expressed by provincial premiers. They mutter away about protecting. They go into a fetal crouch to protect what is theirs. However, there is not a monolithic attitude to those issues in western Canada. The premiers do not speak for all western Canadians in taking that attitude. There is a tradition of reform in western Canada, a tradition of seeking a national interest as seen in the activities of Liberal premiers like T. C. Norris in Manitoba and in the writings of John Dafoe which exemplify a sense not only of national interest but also international interest. They were not small minds with shrinking values. They did not pull themselves in. They did not engage in a form of regional narcissism wherein they looked at their own images and said what was best for them. They had a vision of how the strength and resources of regions could be used to work to the benefit of the entire country.
The Prime Minister says we should not be afraid of giving the regions too much power. No one is afraid of giving the regions too much power, but the Prime Minister, as a sometime student of history, should know that there must be a balance between the regions and the centre, and that if the pendulum swings too far, the centre folds. We are going through that very period now. There is no other federal country in the world which has allowed its regions and provinces to become so decentralized and so powerful as we have in this country. It is time to right the balance, to bring it back into equilibrium and to begin to assert that only a national

government speaking with a national voice can encompass the full flow of energy and resources to work for our totality.
Provincial boundaries are too limiting for the great tasks this country needs performed. We cannot ask provincial premiers, even those who are legitimately saying that they want to serve our interests, to broaden their scope. Their constituencies are their provinces. It would try the highest values of statesmanship to say "We want you to be great friends and neighbours to the provinces three or four to the west or east of you". That is why we have a national government.
However, as we lop off and give away piece by piece the federal presence, and as we hold 40-minute meetings and blithely walk out with a little grin and say "We just gave away the offshore resources today, what can we do next?", surely we are eroding and ripping apart the ability of this federal government to speak for an entire country.
The western voice which will be heard in this House is not one of parochialism and provincialism. It will try to seek a broader national interest and represent those westerners who see things in a different way from the westerners opposite.
In closing, let me remind the House of the words of another good Liberal, John Stuart Mill, when he said that we have far more to fear from the weaknesses of our enemies than from their strengths. He said that it is the task of an opposition to challenge those weaknesses for the sake of the country. It is a welcome challenge to challenge the weaknesses of the new members opposite, and judging by what we have seen so far, it is a very big job. I can assure the House that the group on this side is up to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be back in an old home of mine. This is where I belong.
First, sir, I would like to commend and congratulate you as Deputy Speaker and as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. 1 commend and congratulate also the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) for the excellent presentations they made on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I am indeed fortunate in being able to represent Hamilton Mountain. I say this with all sincerity because I was the recipient of only 42 per cent of the popular vote. But I will tell this House and my constituents in Hamilton Mountain that I will be constant in my duties and do the best I can for the benefit of Canada in general and my constituents in particular.
As I mentioned earlier, this is not a new experience for me. I was here before, in the Twenty-ninth Parliament. However, this time I sit on the right side of the House, so it is a new experience for me in that regard.
I suppose Hamilton Mountain could be termed, in political terms at least, a swing riding, but I do not see why that should mitigate against my doing a responsible job. On the contrary, I
October 11, 1979

think it makes us all the more cognizant of the mood of the peoole of our ridings and of Canadians in general.
From Mountain Lookout the visitor enjoys a scenic panorama with miles of residential and commercial development in the foreground. In the middle distance is the heavy industry of Canada, the third most important manufacturing city and the home of Canada's two largest steel mills, the whole framed by the dramatic and exciting Burlington Skyway in the background. Front and centre in Canada's golden horseshoe area, Hamilton sits at the strategic west end of Lake Ontario.
It is indeed an idyllic setting for a city. But the natural beauty also gives the city a number of geographical advantages. The advantages of location, harbour and the escarpment would shape Hamilton's commercial and industrial future. It is located at the junction of two great waterways, the United States Mohawk-Hudson and Canada's first inland highway, the St. Lawrence River.
Hamilton Bay is an ideal harbour. It is protected by a sand bar sheltering it from the rougher waters of Lake Ontario. This protective harbour saved the British Navy and perhaps Canada from the Americans during the War of 1812 when the navy slipped into the harbour. Some suggest we have a navy in Canada which is disappearing. I am sure our government will be doing something about that.
The escarpment on the mountain itself has been an asset. It was formed by glacial deposits on the receding of the ice age. The sedimentary rock of shale, sandstone and particularly limestone provided necessary raw materials for industry. With all these natural assets one might say that a city at the end of Lake Ontario was inevitable, but one would not have predicted a city with the vibrancy and diversity of Hamilton today. These geographical advantages were used by past generations of Hamiltonians to make it Canada's industrial giant, as well as the second largest city in Ontario, producing 60 per cent of the nation's steel, which in turn is responsible for Hamilton being the third largest port in terms of tonnage in Canada.
It is against such an economic backdrop that Canada's two largest steelmakers, the Steel Company of Canada and Dominion Foundries, are pushing ahead with significant increases in capacity. In 1978, Dofasco brought into production its new steel-making shop which represented at that time the largest single capital investment in that company's history. But this project, important as it was to Hamilton and to Canada, was dwarfed in an announcement by the company last week of a new mill, the construction of which is to cost $350 million. And just six months from now, Stelco will pour the first steel at its Lake Erie development, in an expansion program which is the largest single venture in the history of the Canadian steel industry. So even in these times of economic troubles I am proud to say that Hamilton, the ambitious city, is holding its own.
There were, however, problems with respect to getting help from federal governments in the past; hopefully, there will not be the same difficulty in the future. There is, for example, the
The Address-Mr. Beattie
question of seaway tolls so central to keeping these giants of industry expanding and keeping Canadians working. I might refer to the blatant discrimination of seaway tolls as they pertain to bulk cargo vis-a-vis general cargo. There is also the matter of a commitment made by the previous government- nothing final has yet been determined-concerning funding for an important expansion project in Hamilton harbour.
We also have an airport, of a sort, in Hamilton whose
215,000	movements a year-215,000 movements, yes-placed it seventh in the whole of Canada, ahead of Mirabel, Windsor and Winnipeg, just to mention a few. The city of Hamilton has been clamouring for the last ten years for expanded facilities, improved runways, better lighting and navigational aids. In 1973, as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I asked a question regarding the expansion of Hamilton airport and was told a decision would be made after the completion of environmental studies. Mr. Speaker, six years later I find they are still studying the environment. At this point we know the habitat of every bullfrog and reed in Wentworth county but still no decision has been reached. Can anyone question the attitude of some Hamiltonians who claim they work hard all year and ask where it gets them in terms of promises from government? To copy a well-known television advertisement, they get it in the back, the neck and God knows where else. Am I asking too much when I press at this point for a decision which would eliminate the atmosphere of uncertainty surrounding this extremely important project? I think not.
Hamilton, I might add, is a city destined to grow and prosper, an ambitious city. It might well be termed a city within a city, because as is the trend in most metropolitan areas many workers live in the suburbs and commute to work. Today, 30 per cent of the population live atop the escarpment, hence the term "split level city" and the name "Hamilton Mountain" for the constituency which I proudly represent. So part of the area could be described as a bedroom community for the city proper and is highly cosmopolitan, its population made up of many ethnic groups. These new Canadians, through their activities and by reason of their heritage, add colour and depth to the city's cultural fabric which does much to build a sense of co-operation and understanding among all the citizens. Hamilton is a richer community as a result and is a microcosm of Canada in this regard.
I am proud to say that Hamiltonians were in the vanguard of Canadians who contributed time, effort and money in alleviating the plight of Vietnamese refugees. As one of an earlier group of boat people I know how grateful we all are to Canada for granting the opportunity to build a new life in this great nation.
Having said this, I should like to add a few words of comment. One gets the impression at times that anything but blind acceptance of present immigration policies as they relate to refugees is to be viewed as being in poor taste. But if there are valid questions to be asked-and there are-not all of them are being asked by racist, red-necked crackpots who lack compassion for those less fortunate. There are some questions to be asked pertaining to racial balance or imbalance and I do

The Address-Mr. Beattie
not think they are all being asked by racist, red-necked crackpots. There are two sides to this important question and 1 believe each should be listened to.
On a more serious note, the possibility exists that there will no longer be a Canada to open its doors to anyone if we do not resolve our internal disputes. What does the future hold for Canada and Canadians? I listened to the former prime minister talking yesterday about famous Liberals and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) talking about Sir John A. Macdonald. I should like to go back to Georges Etienne Cartier, one of the founding fathers of confederation and a favourite of mine who, when asked what he thought was going to happen, said "We are going to build a new nation and a new nationality". Sir, Cartier meant that this country would be Canada and that the nationality would be Canadian. We cannot settle for anything less than that.
We must divorce ourselves from those who conveniently forget that Canada was created despite the great problems of geography. It has been held together for more than 100 years by the free will, determination, courage, tolerance, understanding and sacrifice of the vast majority of citizens in every province. Anyone who would seek to gain political ends by provoking one part of the country against another must accept a very grave responsibility. Surely, it is the duty of every member in this House to promote Canada as a country unrivalled in its opportunities for freedom, security, wealth and equality. I am convinced that the will and the attitude of the people of all the provinces will determine whether these two great benefits, opportunity and equality, are to be destroyed, whether our nation is to break up in separate packages. For my own part, I subscribe to the theory presented on provincial equality and national unity by A. R. Kirby, who proclaims that Quebec knows, just as all of Canada knows save for a wilfully self-blinded but influential few, that the constant placation of la belle province for these many, many years is not because of our respect for its culture, the so-called "French fact" and so on. The core of the truth is that we are scared stiff of the alternative to what we recoginize as our present Canadian unity.
I believe Quebec knows its identity and its destiny, or thinks it does, which amounts to the same thing. Some other provinces may also have reached the same point. What this country needs now is not the grovelling, snivelling, sentimental plea of appeasement which only insults the dignity of Quebeckers and tramples whatever shreds of our own dignity that remain. Instead, we need the quiet self-assurance and courage which enable us to say: "This is who we are, and this is where we are going. If you think your interests will be best served by staying with us and sharing the journey, you are welcome to be aboard. We will be happy to have you. We would be lost without you. As you see, we respect you and your wish to preserve your heritage and your cultural identity. However, if you decide to come with us, we expect reciprocal respect from you for the many languages and cultures which exist in the other provinces."

Mr. Speaker, culture should not have to be propped up to controlled. Culture, like religion, is a private matter and will survive according to the devotion of its own adherents, not by false and abrasive artifices. Thus, in genuine mutual respect we can go forward in search of a future we have voluntarily sought as partners, rather than as cohabitants unwillingly bonded only by our fears.
I was delighted to hear the word "individual" permeate the throne speech and to hear the word "opportunity" in the speeches of some hon. members following that. I say this because I believe "individual" and "opportunity" are the two key words in the Canadian system, a sort of Canadian ideal, if you like. In my opinion, the most beaten up word in the Canadian system is "equality", mentioned by the previous speaker. All over this country I have seen people trying to translate the word and make it mean something else. By the wildest stretch of the imagination the people who founded this country, the founders of confederation, never expected everyone to go up the ladder of success the same distance. But they must have the opportunity to go as far as the next individual, and as individuals they have the right to put their foot on the first rung of that ladder and to go as high and as far as their ability, their willingness to work and some breaks will take them. When you have that in Canada, you have guaranteed opportunity; and when you have opportunity in Canada, then you have equality.
I think that is the least we can do for our people, and I think it is important that we at least recognize that fact rather than adopt the gloomy outlook of some of the members of the opposition that this government will destroy the Canadian system in, my goodness, four months! The danger, as I see it, is that we will be unable to transmit the system to future generations, not just this government but all of us. To put it another way, the system will not fail us but some of us might fail the system.
Today our country is facing big problems, but then which country is not? Most Canadians are bewildered by these problems, used as we are to constant growth, regular productivity increases, an unlimited supply of natural resources and social benefits. But occasionally one gets the impression that those who maintain that the world owes them a living are going to win. On top of all this, everyone seems to be blaming everyone else for this turn in our fortunes. While I agree that we may be faced with difficult times ahead, I cannot see anything being gained by encouraging the growth of a feeling of defeatism. The problems that must be dealt with call for a sense of confidence, a sense of hope and a spirit of courage and determination to succeed. We must refuse to let the odd setback interfere with our long range goal of a united and prosperous Canada.
The method of achieving this goal brings me to the story of a great Canadian. I am indebted to Kenneth Bagnell for this story. In one of Pierre Berton's recent and vivid books "My Country" there is a story of Samuel Hearne, from the same
October 11, 1979

province as the former speaker, a man whose life was filled with risk, who stands in contrast to the mood of many people of our own generation who seem given more and more to caution, hesitation and second thoughts. Hearne was a magnificent risk taker. In 1769 when he was 24 years old, he set out on foot on a trek of 4,000 miles across the hard and lonely land from northern Manitoba to the shores of the western Arctic in search of a fabled copper mine. Hearne was almost completely inexperienced. Along the way he was robbed once, he had to turn back twice, and toward the end of the expedition he witnessed a massacre of helpless Eskimos. In the end there was no copper mine. His journey took seven years 24 months and seven days. He managed to produce, despite the ordeal, a journal en route that is a classic to this day. Hearne's real contribution, writes Berton-
-was his close and accurate description of the Chipewyan and Dogrib Indians, the flora and fauna of the country through which he travelled and his willingness to adapt to native ways, which set the pattern of Arctic survival for generations.
It is obvious that the days of that special kind of risk, one man pitted against the elements, have passed into history. But in recent years, among many of our people there seems to be a growing awareness of risk of any kind. With few exceptions, our generation is making a high virtue out of caution. Some who recognize this claim that it has grown out of despair, specifically American despair brought on by the assassination of leaders, the ordeal of Vietnam and the disgrace of Watergate. That gloom, I suggest, has touched all of us, for if the morale of such a close neighbour is lowered, it is natural that our own will be affected.
The causes for the timidity around us, however, lie beyond the recent American past; they are historic and worldwide. They may be the result of a century that has been disappointing, of wars that were futile, alliances that were doomed and dreams of world brotherhood that did not materialize. Beyond these, there has been a disappointment in science which has not cured all our ills, in education which has not solved all our problems, in political promises made but not fulfilled. This series of frustrations, one after the other, has created a climate in which it is easy to retreat, to lose the willingness to venture.
It is not hard to find reasons for prudence, to set aside the old maxim "nothing ventured, nothing gained" and to replace it with another which sounds just as wise, "nothing ventured, nothing lost". This passive and defensive mood is reflected, in some ways at least, in the growing trust we give to the opinions of people we call futurists, recent professionals, often commanding large fees, who tell us what lies ahead, so that the risk of experiment and adventure are diminished.
Now, in the field of economics in which issues are growing more and more complex this care may be necessary and wise, but when it becomes the philosophy by which people live so that courage is replaced by caution and energy by inertia, then life is lessened and generations to come are defrauded. Some of the hesitation about making a bold decision or setting upon a new course arises out of a fear that we may make the wrong decision or take the undesired course. While this may be a natural inclination, it is nonetheless weak. Too many of our
The Address-Mr. Beattie
organizations, business, labour and government, are kept from reaching their high ambitions because within them are men and women who, when called upon to make an adventuresome decision, waver because they are frightened of being wrong. They misunderstand.
Thomas Edison, it is said, once experimented over many months without success. Someone working alongside him sympathized, saying that it was too bad to have to work so hard, so long, without results. "But", Edison said, "we have a lot of results. We now know 700 things that don't work". Samuel Hearne was sent, in one sense, on an expedition that was a mistake. There was no copper to be mined on the rim of the Arctic and the fabled Northwest Passage of which his employers dreamed was of little value. His chief findings, as Pierre Berton notes, were negative but they were nevertheless meaningful.
Nothing could be more wrong than for people to believe that the prevalent mood of retrenchment is acceptable, for the main trouble with an attitude of retreat is that it feeds on itself and becomes self-fulfilling. People who go on the defensive, whether in relation to the future of our country or the future of their own lives, find it more and more difficult to change their attitude and to take new initiative. There are people, of course, who have given up, who believe that the signs of the times are so ominous, populations exploding and habitable land decreasing, that it is naive to expect man to hold on to courage and to act in constructive and creative ways.
This, however, is not what history has shown, for in both nations and individuals the great contributions to history have always been in the midst of circumstances that were, on the surface, far from conducive. We have a choice. A discouraging time can bring paralysis or stimulus. That was clearly the case in the light of one Nathaniel Hawthorne who travelled a difficult road before he found the key to triumph. Hawthorne wrote a sentence significant for all whose dreams are temporarily at bay. He said:
An individual must keep faith in himself while the incredulous world assails him with its utter disbelief.
I have people say to me once in a while, "How do you defend taking strong stands on things and having strong convictions?" I have reached the point now of telling them that I have spent all my adult life trying to reduce my ignorance. I have gained a body of knowledge from people here and from people who have preceded me. I am not ashamed to say that occasionally 1 go to the source of all truths, the scriptures. I have a way of life now which kind of works and I can defend it.
I ask my fellow members how we are going to convince our Canadian brothers about the great equality of opportunity which exists in our country today, opportunities magnified in a united and prosperous Canada, if we do not have the courage of our own convictions. It will take courage, a special kind of courage. However, I have travelled this world and I have studied history and I can simply find no great contributions

October 1 1, 1979
The Address-Mr. Lapierre
made by those of placid faith and cringing courage. Only those with abiding beliefs are the ones who look ahead of the time and make any imprint in history. We must give people something that endures.
My plea today is for us not to rob our generation of the power which comes with simple abiding belief in oneself and in one's country. The capacity for that kind of belief and courage is not something a country or its leaders can set in motion, the way it can set in motion controls upon wages and prices. Our people must be encouraged to rediscover their natural gifts, their human gifts and their true potential, realizing at the same time that there is no heavier burden than a great potential. Also they can be asked to remember that their country has achieved its character in the face of great odds and continues in spite of great difficulties, and they can be reminded from time to time of their abiding strength.
Donald Alexander Smith who drove the last spike on the CPR said:
Canadians have always stood for courage and unconquerability. They have the muscle, the wholesomeness of life, the strength of will.
It should be clear to all of us that we have already entered into Canada's most critical period. The wisest among us cannot predict the outcome, but we know we have the resource to face it and to see it through in constructive ways. What all our people need now is a renewal of our confidence in the human spirit and its reach. In the end that may matter more than anything else. Mr. Wilfred Grenfell said the following:
It is courage the world needs, not infallibility. Courage is always the surest wisdom.
Like enthusiasm it is contagious. It must be kept on display. But we cannot kindle the fire of courage and enthusiasm in the heart of another human being unless it burns brightly within our own. That fire burns in our bellies or we would not be here. It is transferable. We must reach the hearts and the minds of people who would despair in the sordidness and cynicism of our times, individuals who look to us for help, leadership and a display of courage which will keep this great country of Canada united and prosperous.


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


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset to extend to you my sincere congratulations for your nomination. The fact that hon. members designated you a second time to sit in the chair in spite of the present circumstances is a proof of your impartiality, efficiency and wisdom.
I also want to congratulate the two movers of the address and assure the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) that as a part of a new generation of members of the House, 1 am just like him dedicated to keeping the country united and strong.
It is a privilege and a great honour for me to make this first speech in the name of the people of the riding of Shefford who, after having been represented for more than 11 years by a

member of the Social Credit Party of Canada, have come back to their long time Liberal tradition. I hope that this tradition will be kept for many years. Following the footsteps of parliamentarians like Huntington, Parmelee, Boivin, Leclerc and Neveu is for me a very important challenge and I hope I will take it up successfully.
Let me thank most heartfully my constituents of Shefford for the confidence they have put in me, and I want to assure them of my most assiduous devotion and of my determination to defend their interests in the House. According to the tradition, when a new member of parliament makes his maiden speech in this House, he does his best to describe the beauty and the charm of his constituency. I would like to describe the beauty of the eastern townships, but since that beauty cannot be described, I would rather invite my colleagues to come and visit our beautiful region. If we consider the numerous visits that the new Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) made to our region in the last two years, we must conclude that the Progressive Conservatives did like my constituency but, unfortunately for them, my constituency did not like them.
To come to the Speech from the Throne, I must acknowledge that, probably because I am the youngest of all members,
I was still deluding myself about the determination and the sensitivity of this new government faced with the problems which preoccupy Canadians in general and more particularly the voters in my constituency. Unfortunately, after having heard, read and read again that speech, I only feel bitterly disappointed. While the former government was called breathless, I call this one asthmatic. For me, to take over four months to prepare such a poor program of action is a sign of general weakness and asthma. As an example, I would like to recall the expectations of Canadian farmers since the May 22 election and show the inaction of this government.
Just a few days after the election, everybody was waiting impatiently for the appointment of that super minister of agriculture who was, according to what the new Prime Minister had said, to hold a very high rank within the cabinet, precisely in order to improve the status of farmers. What a disappointment it was for us to realize that the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was not even admitted within the closed circle of the most important cabinet ministers.
With the milk producers, I waited in vain to hear the announcement that there would be a drastic cut in cheese imports. With them, I have come to realize once again that the government does not keep its promises. With the pork producers, especially, I have been waiting for the energetic measures that were promised with a view to encouraging the sale of their products abroad. In that field, as in the others, our hopes were dashed. With the whole agricultural sector, I have been waiting for an increase in the funds allotted to research and development. There again, the government has changed its
October 11, 1979

mind. Mr. Speaker, those many commitments having been betrayed, I felt sure that the government was saving the best for the Speech from the Throne. But alas! The height of deception was reached when His Excellency the Governor General failed to even mention once the word "agriculture". Let me tell you that for a party that was supposed to raise the status of agriculture, this is a very discreet way of doing so.
Worse still, the government says it is prepared to introduce in the House a bill to help settle more quickly labour disputes under federal jurisdiction, whereas current statutes do allow the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) to intervene into disputes that have been lasting for too long. I will give only one example: the dispute in the Montreal harbour. Farmers have been asking the minister to step in for many months now, but he keeps saying no and disregards their appeals. If this is how they raise the status of agriculture, then I deeply question the intentions of this government.
Mr. Speaker, although agriculture is a vital matter for the people in my riding, I would be remiss if I did not refer to other aspects of the Speech from the Throne which attracted my attention.
My age allows me to share the worry and concern of young Canadians faced by their job prospects, their future. That is why 1 welcome with pleasure, but also with a little reserve, the government's intention to create a youth employment secretariat. But I am afraid this could only be a new name for some old agencies. I hope the axe of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) will not prevent this new agency from playing a really efficient part in the fight against unemployment.
By refusing to earmark funds for the Canada Works program in my riding, this government has put a number of young and not so young people out of work. 1 hope that programs will be created as soon as possible to enable the idle but powerful hands in our society to join the labour market and thus contribute to building our country.
I am much concerned by the review of the Unemployment Insurance Act and I hope the government no longer intends to apply its discriminatory concept of variable benefits. I have already communicated my views to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) and I hope he will take them into consideration.
Industrial development is also an important issue in my region and I urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) not to wait for his mandate to be extended by Parliament before reviewing the delimitation of areas designated for grants. The riding of Shefford must recover its status of designated area to respond fully to the challenge launched by the Prime Minister yesterday to build our country. I consider that change so important that I asked to meet the minister responsible to explain to him in detail the validity of our representations. I hope that my request will be favourably considered.
The Address-Mr. Faour
Another significant aspect for development and employment in our area is the proposed decentralization of the cartography services of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the vicinity of Sherbrooke. That big project announced by the previous government has been shifted over to the "deferred" files in the office of the President of the Treasury Board. I speak now on behalf of my colleagues from the eastern townships to ask what this government intends to do now. I would say that I am relying now on the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) who holds the important office of Minister of Supply and Services, in the hands of the Progressive Conservative Party now, to inform us on the future of this project.
I also take this opportunity to comment on the now famous and unique speech of the no less unique minister of state for social programs, his address to the Federation des clubs de Page d'or du Quebec. Here is what he said to those people: "Our country can no longer afford to wander in the field of universal benefits and must concentrate its efforts on those who are the most in need without, however, jeopardizing its economy and the situation of those who depend on the present system."
These few words have caused much concern and insecurity among our senior citizens, because to question universal entitlement to old age security would be, in the eyes of many Canadians, a retrograde and anti-social move. I hope that the disappearance of the honorific title of this minister will result in the disappearance of this theory which would take away from Canadians the prospect of a secure future at the time of their retirement.
In closing, I join with my right hon. leader in asking the government to create a truly national spirit and to introduce programs which do not mean a shirking of all its responsibilities. Nothing in the Speech from the Throne shows the coherent vision of tomorrow's Canada that my colleagues and myself in the official opposition can offer to our fellow citizens of Quebec for the referendum. We do not believe that the Utopian feelings of this government, which can lead it to believe that there can be any spirit of co-operation between a central government and a government of secession, could promote the cause of federalism in Quebec. This attitude of neglect towards separatism will certainly be compensated by the energy and the vigour with which we, on this side of the House, intend to fight this battle.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government party, in view of its extreme fragility, will be willing to accept a few of the suggestions made by the opposition and show some realism in the best interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite honoured today to make my first speech of this session. It is not my maiden speech and I guess you could say that I am a member of that small "class of '78",

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Faour
having arrived here about this time last year. It is a fairly short time since I made my own maiden speech. I should like to congratulate the mover of the motion before us and the seconder, as well as those other new members who have spoken on this motion in respect of the throne speech.
It is always a very significant occasion when an hon. member makes his maiden speech, at least it was when I made mine in this House. I trust that for all of those new members this will be the beginning of an interesting and rewarding career. I was going to add the word "long", but perhaps I should reserve that for members of my own party.
I should also like to congratulate those hon. members who have returned here. It is interesting to note how the composition of the House has changed. It is interesting to see different faces opposite at this time.
My comments today will present a perspective from my point of view of Atlantic Canada, with emphasis on my own riding and my own province of Newfoundland.
Before commencing those comments I should like to present my own impression of what I have witnessed in the House in the last few days, those few days the House has been in session since the election. I find it astounding that two parties have basically changed positions in the House and seem to have reversed themselves in terms of policy as well. It is incredible that the former opposition party, now the party in government, is promulgating policies and programs it criticized not more than five months ago. It is equally incredible that the party on this side of the House to my right, which was the government only five months ago, is criticizing the present government for proposing the same policies it was implementing five months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alphonsus Faour: It is perhaps a fact that I am a little naive, Mr. Speaker, being still a relatively new member, just having a little less than a year in the House under my belt. Perhaps it is naive to think that political parties are supposed to stick to their convictions. If that is naivete, Mr. Speaker, I hope it remains with me for quite a while.
My comments today about Atlantic Canada have been prefaced by the comments of the former leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), when he stated during the election campaign that regional development would be at the very centre of national policy, whereas under the Liberals it had been given secondary importance. That is a very significant commitment by the Prime Minister to the people of Atlantic Canada. For many years we in Altantic Canada have had a problem in making our presence felt on the national scene, and certainly in making our presence felt among those in the government of the day, in spite of the fact that as members of the government, whether Liberal or Tory, there have been and are many from Atlantic Canada. Over the past years the Atlantic region has just not had a voice or input into the program and policies of government, a voice and input needed by the Atlantic region in order to make it a contributing part of this country we call Canada.

In that regard I was encouraged by what the Prime Minister said before the election, that regional development, in particular Atlantic development, would be a priority of this government. The government has only been in power for four and a half months but they have already reneged on that promise. Their record has been dismal in that time in terms of placing priority on regional development and Atlantic development in their programs. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is supposed to be an instrument of government policy for furthering the development of the underdeveloped regions, in particular the Atlantic region. But how can the Prime Minister say that it is a priority of his government if the minister responsible for DREE is not even within the inner cabinet?
The throne speech places regional development in the forefront as a concern of the government. I do not claim that in that speech the government was listing its priorities, but it would be nice if regional development were listed as one of the five priorities of the government. But their record of the past four odd months has shown otherwise and in fact regional development is not a priority of this government. The Atlantic region can expect no more from this government than they received from the previous government.
The government has not pursued a policy of full employment. Although the Atlantic region has the highest rate of unemployment in the country, there has been no real attack on this particular problem. All that the government has proposed, and it is all that we have heard about in the media over the last four months, are cutbacks, spending restraint, privatization and so on. The government seems to feel that by spending less the unemployed in Atlantic Canada will somehow go away, that maybe they will go to some other country or another part of Canada. However, the problem will not go away just by the government wishing it away.
Positive action must be taken, but in the past four and a half months not one new job has been created by this government. There has not even been a review, a study or a royal commission formed to study the particular problems of the Atlantic region. The only review affecting the Atlantic region in particular was done by the Department of Employment and Immigration, and it was not of a positive nature. There was no review of programs to create jobs or economic development. What we had was a review of to what extent the government should further attack the unemployed in the region.
Specifically that review, that restrictive document issued by the department, called into question and asked for a review of the entitlement of seasonal workers, fishermen and others, to unemployment benefits. There was no discussion at all of jobs to alleviate the unemployment problem in a positive way. There was no discussion of what these people will do if they are disentitled to unemployment benefits, people such as workers in the fish plants and in the tourist industry. The guiding light of this government has been a slavish adherence to the dogma of "spend less". Any first-year economic student would
October 11, 1979

tell them that that policy is foolish, but I will pursue that area a little later.
The government expressed its commitment to regional development in April during the election campaign, but how has this been expressed over the last few months? One needs only to look at the negative effects of their spending restraint policies since that time. As I mentioned before, the biggest problem in economic terms in Atlantic Canada is unemployment.
I have here the statistics on the unemployment rates of a few months ago. The official unemployment rate for Newfoundland was 18.8 per cent, 14.3 per cent for Prince Edward Island and 13.4 per cent for New Brunswick. If those figures are contrasted with the western provinces, for example, Alberta was at 4.9 per cent, Saskatchewan at 5.8 per cent and Ontario at an unemployment rate of 7.4 per cent. Statistics Canada confirmed what we had known all along last year when they came out with the concept of hidden unemployment. If one looks at the hidden unemployment figures for the Atlantic region, the rate jumps to 32.9 per cent in Newfoundland and 27.3 per cent in Prince Edward Island.
Those particular figures only tell part of the story. Let us look at the job availability statistics in the region. Whereas Alberta had over 64 jobs for every 100 residents age 15 and over, the maritimes average only 44 jobs. In terms of the unemployed there were nine jobs for every 100 people unemployed last year. Nothing has been done to solve the problem at all. Instead the government has embarked on another systematic attack on the unemployed.
I say "another" because the Liberal government initiated the first attack last fall. The Liberal government introduced Bill C-14 last fall, which amounted to a vicious kick to the unemployed. Present government members opposed that bill quite strongly, but where are they now? The present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) is across the way, and he said during the debate on the bill that it amounted to a kick in the gut to the unemployed. We agreed with him. At that time we were arguing the same side of the issue and we felt that priority should be given to fighting unemployment, not the unemployed. We felt that unemployment was the enemy, not those of our constituents who happened to be without jobs. They were not the enemy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alphonsus Faour: The government of the day looked quite inept and stupid when it tried to rationalize the changes by saying, in effect, that the unemployed were there through their own fault. I have no doubt that the present government will look just as inept and stupid when it tries to rationalize the proposals they are putting forward. We in Atlantic Canada know that people are unemployed through no fault of their own.
The Tories agreed with us last year on that point, but they do not seem to agree with us quite so strongly now that they are the government. They opposed the bill last year quite strongly. When the present minister of fisheries was merely the hon. member for St. John's East, he made this comment in the
The Address-Mr. Faour
committee on labour, manpower and immigration on November 21, 1978:
-the fact is that the damage has been done and that damage is going to result in severe injustices in areas of high unemployment, specially in the province where we come from, and that to me is the travesty of this bill.
That was the attitude of the minister last year. This year his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), is presenting proposals in the same vein. In fact, he has enacted a portion of that bill which went unproclaimed until after the election.


Mr. Benjamin:: Where are you when we need you, Jim?


An hon. Member:: Fishing.


Alphonsus Faour: It was not only members of the NDP who opposed that bill at that time. Another member of the Tory party, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), who was also the president of the national Tory party, said at that time that the Liberal government was attempting to tinker with the unemployment insurance scheme on the backs of the unemployed in Atlantic Canada. That was their attitude then.
After making such comments last year it would be natural to assume that this party once in power would take these views with them to that side of the House. I do not understand what it is about this side of the House. It seems that the opposition has a conscience and understanding of what the real problems are, but it seems to leave that conscience over here when it crosses the aisle. And now the new party in opposition has picked up the conscience.


An hon. Member:: Sinclair Stevens and Bay Street are deciding policies.


Alphonsus Faour: It does not make any sense to me to say that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) and Bay Street are deciding policies for Atlantic Canada, where the results are absolutely tragic. After May 22 when the Tories became the government, they forgot about their concern for the unemployed in Atlantic Canada and proclaimed this very regulation that they had fought. And as if that were not bad enough, they then reviewed the entitlement of seasonal workers, fishermen and so on. No job-creation programs have been presented nor have any proposals for economic development been presented, but there have been plans to cut back on benefits for the unemployed and other underprivileged people in the country.
The Speech from the Throne referred to other cutbacks under the guise of streamlining spending. It is amazing how sweet words like "streamlining spending" can camouflage for weak minds the havoc that is wreaked on individuals by an insensitive government. Mr. Speaker, this government is dedicated to a mindless pursuit of a mindless ideology. It is obvious that it is no more a friend of the unemployed than was its predecessor. This new review will make it an even greater enemy of the unemployed.

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Faour
Some hon. members opposite are from the Atlantic region and I know they appreciate the problem. Frankly, I do not understand how they can rationalize their membership in that party. Hon. members opposite from other regions of the country would do well to visit communities in Atlantic Canada to see the beauty down there, to enjoy the friendliness and hospitality of the people. At the same time they could see what this type of policy means to individual Canadians there and to the children of workers caught in this bind.
In the debate on this issue last year I said that it would mean cold homes and hungry children. Mr. Speaker, I have just completed a tour of my riding and 1 can see that there are going to be cold homes and hungry children this winter because of the regulations promulgated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. If the government pursues this policy, 8,700 Newfoundland fishermen on the south coast of the island, on the west coast of the island and on the northeast coast of the island-not counting the number affected in the other three maritime provinces-will be placed on provincial welfare rolls.
I will return to the original thread of my comments today, Mr. Speaker, which is to ask if this is what the government regards as placing a high priority on regional Atlantic development. If it is, I am certainly glad they have not placed a low priority on it.
The government's attitude of restraint at any cost does not make sense when applied to the economic situation in Atlantic Canada. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) was a member of the opposition and the House was debating Bill C-19 in November, 1976, he said:
It is beyond my comprehension how any government can restrain expenditures in an area of the country which has an unemployment rate of 13.9 per cent.
It was lower then than now, Mr. Speaker. He continued:
It is, in fact, positively cruel and inhuman for any government to apply a restraint policy equally across this country as though every section of it is the same. It may be a policy of restraint that is quite apt for provinces like Ontario, Alberta or Saskatchewan, perhaps, where there are now high employment figures, but it is not proper to apply it blindly to Newfoundland which has an unemployment rate of almost 14 per cent.
At that time the unemployment rate was only 14 per cent in Newfoundland but today it is 18 per cent. This leads us to ask why a restraint policy must now apply holus-bolus across the board to Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians as well as to Albertans and people in Saskatchewan. This appears to me to be contrary to the expressed promise of the Prime Minister for Atlantic regional development. He seemed to place a high priority on such development. This would seem to me to mean special policies tailored to individual areas of the country, particularly the Atlantic region.
As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I would remark that hon. members opposite at least seem to be demonstrating some interest in the plight of Atlantic Canada by their presence in the House today. When I look to my right to the Liberal benches, however, I see only three members. If this is a demonstration of their interest in the Atlantic provinces, it is no wonder that the party to which I belong is on the increase in Newfoundland

and Nova Scotia. It is also probably the reason for the lack of action during the last 16 years under a Liberal government. The Tories cannot take any consolation from that, however, because for the past four and one-half months they have not stayed with the ideas and policies they presented while in opposition.
As I pointed out, when the Minister of Finance was in opposition he stated it was madness to apply this type of policy right across the country without making exceptions for areas such as the Atlantic region. Yet that is what is happening right now. The Atlantic region is caught in the bind imposed by this cutback mentality, this restraint program that is affecting the lives of Canadians all over the country. In Atlantic Canada it will mean more unemployment and hardship, especially this winter.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister stated that regional development would be a priority of this government, but its over-all policy has turned out to be to the detriment of Atlantic Canada. When we examine some of the government's programs on the national level it is easy to see how disastrous they will be for Atlantic Canada.
The leader of this party questioned the Minister of Finance this morning on the matter of interest rate hikes. This will further depress the already depressed economy of the Atlantic region. If this policy creates problems in the stock market in Toronto it is easy to imagine what a problem it will be for consumers, small businessmen and fishermen in Atlantic Canada. It strikes at the heart of economic activity ail over the country. The government has not seen fit to introduce programs designed to alleviate the effects of interest rate hikes. The problem presented to Atlantic Canada in this respect is even greater than that presented to the rest of the country, yet the government has not produced any offsetting programs for that area.
The whole thrust of the government's policies has been to exclude the Atlantic region. The biggest plank in the Tory platform in the last year or so was first mortgage interest deductibility, and later a mortgage tax credit, but that totally bypasses Atlantic Canada where over 70 per cent of the people are ineligible. In the final year of the program the government will spend over $2 billion, yet it not only has minimal effects in the Atlantic region but has already been cancelled out by the interest hike. How does a government that stated regional development as a high priority justify this type of expenditure?
I will be interested to hear what the government present on this subject in the next few months.
Another area of cutback that will have serious impact in my part of the country concerns the moneys that were allocated to the development of small craft harbours for fishermen through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Hundreds of fishermen in my riding and that of the hon. members from Cape Breton will be affected. I would be interested to know why no allowance was made for this industry which is so crucial to the Atlantic region when the government has a stated policy of regional development as a priority. It is imperative, particularly in Newfoundland where harbour development has been
October 11, 1979

behind the other Atlantic provinces, that the priority attached by the Prime Minister to regional development be demonstrated in this area. We are not getting that. We are getting the "happy hacker from Bay Street". His influence and effect is being felt in every fishing harbour in Newfoundland and in the maritime provinces.
In this particular area many projects are needed and many more need to be completed. There are thousands of fishermen depending on this particular program for their livelihood. In these areas the Tories opposite are showing themselves to be carbon copies of the Liberals on this side. They are continuing to implement Liberal-Tory policies and promises that have detrimental effects on the Atlantic region, and they are continuing to pay only lip service to regional development in the eastern provinces. That is obviously all that the former leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister, meant when he talked in the spring about placing regional development as a priority.
What areas can we suggest that the government work on? The Liberals' refusal to make a commitment to the steel industry in Cape Breton was one area, and the Tories seem quite reluctant as well. If the government would provide the economic leadership, this area has the potential totally to transform certainly the Cape Breton economy as well as the economy of Nova Scotia. We have seen no new initiatives in terms of ending discriminatory transportation policies in the region. There has been no departure, certainly on the part of the government, from the user-pay policy which was the philosophy of the former government.


An hon. Member:: We know what happened to that government.


Alphonsus Faour: I hope the same thing is going to happen to this government fairly quickly too.
Transportation policy is the major tool that the government has at its disposal to stimulate development. We have seen nothing in terms of a study in the area, let alone some activity.
The other major tool is energy policy. The Atlantic region has the highest energy costs in the country. Not only does it present hardship for consumers, but also it has to have a stultifying and stunting effect on the growth and development in the areas as well. In terms of saying that regional development is a priority for this government, energy policy has to be right up there with transportation and fisheries policy for the Atlantic region. Energy policy is probably more important because it takes energy to run trucks, trains and fishing boats. So 1 say that energy policy is crucial yet this government has done nothing in terms of solving the Atlantic region's energy problems.
We have heard talk of energy self-sufficiency in 1990 and deals with Mr. Lougheed, but have heard nothing in terms of policies to balance the real problem which Atlantic Canada faces. To his credit, and 1 say this quite openly, the Prime Minister has agreed to provincial jurisdiction over offshore resources, unlike the former government. This is very impor-
The Address-Mr. Faour
tant to the future energy requirements on the east coast. That is not the only answer. The granting of provincial jurisdiction has to be seen as part of an over-all energy policy for the region. There is no evidence at all that the government has even broached the question of a maritime energy policy. Not only that, but in terms of their disastrous policy concerning Petro-Canada, the long-term energy security of the eastern provinces is seriously threatened and undermined.
I am not going to go into detail about Petro-Canada. My leader has already done that in his reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to speak briefly about the particular concerns of the region with regard to the effect PetroCan has on it. Petro-Canada has been involved in the search for oil deposits off the east coast. It has been involved in the Sable Island discovery and in the Hibernia well off St. John's that was said to be so promising a few weeks ago. It has been involved in 80 per cent of the wells that have been drilled off the coast of Labrador. For eastern Canada our dependence on imported oil makes it imperative that Petro-Canada protect our interests. We need that corporation to do that.
We propose as well-and this has important significance to Newfoundland-that the oil refinery that is now in Newfoundland lying dormant at Come-By-Chance should be taken over by Petro-Canada. It makes common sense. There are benefits for Newfoundland and for eastern Canada. First, it will provide security of energy supply for eastern Canada. Secondly, that security of supply would provide security of employment for people in Newfoundland.
I am just about to end my speech, Mr. Speaker, and I know that my time has just about run out, but I do want to emphasize that Petro-Canada should be expanded in this area as a fundamental part of the energy policy in the Atlantic region.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. I have been very lenient with him but in order to continue he must have the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alphonsus Faour: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for their indulgence.
In closing, I want to appeal to the government opposite to adhere to the stated policy of the Prime Minister that regional Atlantic development would be a high priority for this government. It will not only benefit the provinces involved, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but it will benefit the whole country. If a region of the country is weak, then the whole country is weak. If a region is strong, then the country will be stronger for it.
Each province, each part of the country, must have the opportunity to receive all of the benefits of being Canadian. More important, we must have the wherewithal and the opportunity to be able to develop to the point that no longer will our hands be continually asking for handouts, but that we in the

The Address-Mr. Crouse
Atlantic provinces will be able to make a net contribution to this land of ours. This is a high priority for me. I appeal to the government to maintain its commitment by giving Atlantic regional development a high priority so that all regions of this country will be able to say, "We are Canadian, we are proud of it, and we are prosperous as a result of it."


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in this debate. It is a privilege I have enjoyed since I was first elected to Parliament in June, 1957.
1 wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address. They gave a worthy account of themselves, and in my view they are a credit to the constituencies which elected them to this House.
I wish also to congratulate Mr. Speaker on his reappointment, which is an honour I believe he has earned and richly deserves.
I also wish to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the members of the cabinet on the quality of the proposals put forward in the throne speech, the first of a set of new proposals put forward by a Conservative government in, I think, 16 years. I believe the measures which have been earmarked for consideration reflect the careful thought and planning which took place between the dissolution of Parliament and the election of the new government. 1 believe that the legislation, when implemented, will be beneficial to all Canadians.
Unlike some hon. members who have already participated in this debate, I am pleased that the new government took a little extra time to prepare its legislative package. I say this because I have a long memory, and I well remember Canadians-and even today-suffering from the hasty actions of a previous administration, which hoped to be all things to all people in its planned "sixty days of decision".
Down Lunenburg way our oldest citizens have a saying which I suppose our forebears brought with them when they came over from Europe in 1753. It goes something like this: "The hurrier I go the behinder I get". So I hope that the careful, thought-out approach to our problems evidenced by the government will be the hallmark of this new administration.
While this year marks 112 years of parliamentary government in Canada, a record of which we can all be proud, it is worth nothing that a good friend and neighbour of Canada's is this year celebrating 250 years of parliamentary rule. I refer to the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, which celebrated this event with the opening of Parliament in Nassau on Saturday, September 29. The years from 1729 to 1979 have seen a tremendous evolution in the Bahamas not only in Parliament but also socially and economically. They have moved from a farming and fishing community to a tourist based economy with banking and finance becoming an important part of the economic life of the country. They also moved from representative government to responsible government and then to

full independence from Britain. In 1967, although it cannot be said, strictly speaking, that it was a parliamentary change, the country experienced what we perhaps would call a quiet revolution when the white minority government was overthrown by a black majority government which was then instituted. This change, more than any other, showed the importance of the vote and the significance of ensuring that each adult person in the country be granted this important right.
1 was privileged to represent Canada at the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary celebrations, and the interest taken in this event not only by members of the Commonwealth but by other countries as well was outstanding. From the minute you arrive in Nassau you cannot help but be aware of the fact that racial tensions there today between blacks and whites are non-existent.
I view this as a tremendous accomplishment which we and other countries would do well to strive to emulate.
When we look at what is happening today in Cuba, for example, and review the statements made by the so-called non-aligned countries at the recent conference held in Havana,
I hope hon. members will agree with me when I say that the Commonwealth of the Bahamas stands out like a bright and shining jewel in what is becoming a very troubled sea, the Caribbean, and the importance of this area will grow considerably in our immediate future.
As the struggle for power intensifies in the Caribbean, where it is now evident Communist forces are on the increase, especially in Cuba, it is a welcome relief to note the importance attached by the Bahamians to parliamentary democracy. This condition exists, 1 believe, because of the respect that is shown by the people to their elected representatives and to the church. They believe that of all God's creations, people are the most important. We are made in His image, and we have been given definite rights and freedoms. As part of God's plan we do not exist alone. We are placed in communities, and our orderly and just development and our prosperity and happiness must be the concern of each other. They believe that it is for this very purpose that Parliaments exist, to provide opportunities for orderly developments. It is for this reason that they respect parliamentary democracy and pledge themselves to its continuation in the future, upholding it in the face of all onslaughts.
I believe that a democratic Parliament has the right to expect the trust, respect and support of all its citizens. Parliamentary democracy cannot function satisfactorily unless it receives this support. By the same token, an awesome responsibility is laid upon members of Parliament. It is a position of great honour and dignity, and I submit that it must not be taken lightly. It necessitates a respect for traditions and for the ideals of the institution as well as a willingness to work and advance its future. It also necessitates a willingness to maintain a relationship with constituents and to take seriously their well-being.
Just as reasonable support of Parliament must be an integral part of its functioning and well-being, so must constructive criticism from the political opposition as well as from support-
October 11, 1979

ers of the party in power be accepted and expected as a vital ingredient of the democratic process. All human beings require constructive, objective evaluation in order to perform efficiently and effectively, and this is no less true of members of Parliament.
In many areas of the world today the democratic parliamentary process is under severe attack, or it is even being supplanted. This, unfortunately, is happening because Parliaments have failed to live up to their ideals. They have not provided opportunities for all the people they represent. A dissatisfied people will quickly seek that system that will fulfil its needs. Here in Canada I believe we must be especially concerned that all of our people have an opportunity for full human development, most especially in the fields of education and economics. Our system must make certain that opportunities for employment and medical care are available to everyone as far as it is economically feasible. Parliament, through its legislation and its influence, must do all in its power to promote the peace, unity and happiness of the Canadian people.
Divisions caused by language, race, colour, creed, geographical location or social standing, 1 submit, must never be supported. Within the democratic system there will be differences of political persuation. We see them right here in this House. But these must not be allowed to divide us permanently or to prevent justice from being carried out. From the very beginning Parliament has based its existence upon Christian principles as well as the principles of democracy and the rule of law. When these principles are abandoned the authority and the respect of Parliament will be undermined, and the rights and freedoms of individuals will be abused. The parliamentary government of this country has brought us this far, and it is my hope that the members of this Parliament who are deeply concerned and conscious of the fundamental rights and freedoms of all our citizens will work assiduously toward making Canada a just, united and prosperous country.
The throne speech, in my opinion, goes a long way toward accomplishing this dream, toward making it a reality. The proposals put forward truly represent a change of direction for Canada as we enter the 1980s. It is good for all of us to hear that consultation and co-operation will be the hallmarks of the new era. This will be a pleasant change, I submit, from what we have known in the past. We saw evidence of the type of consultation and co-operation which will exist when this Parliament opened on Tuesday. The time has come to reconcile our differences and to work together to realize fully our country's potential. By building for the future we can renew the dream of Canadian federalism. We can renew our faith in Canada. We can restore our pride in this country. We can be glad to stand up and say "I am proud to be a Canadian".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In the throne speech this government is demonstrating that it is a government of compassion, for it proposes to extend spouse's allowances in circumstances where they are now denied. It will amend legislation respecting veterans, whose wants for all too long have been overlooked, despite the
The Address-Mr. Crouse
fact that they have made untold sacrifices on behalf of this country. It plans to establish select committees with the resources and powers necessary to inquire fully into the special needs of our handicapped and disabled citizens. One needs only to visit these people in their homes or in the senior citizens' establishments which have been set up across the country to realize that their needs are genuine and worthy of every consideration.
There could be no question that the greatest immediate challenge facing Canada today is to restore growth, confidence and jobs within the Canadian economy. This can only be done by the government and the people working together as a team. The government has pledged to reduce the load on the backs of Canadians through an expenditure management system within government which sets over-all spending limits on all ministers. 1 am pleased to see that in the throne speech because it was a proposal put forward by the present Auditor General, Mr. James Macdonell, during a period when 1 served for two years as chairman of the public accounts committee. It is a measure which is long overdue and should bring about great savings for the Canadian people.
This government plans to offer for private purchase and ownership those Crown corporations operating in areas where direct government intervention is no longer necessary. I think this is a good move for, as Conservatives, we believe that government should not be doing for the people those things people can best do for themselves.
Most important of all, we are going to establish sunset legislation, which will provide Parliament with a regular opportunity to judge whether government programs and agencies should be continued or phased out. As a Nova Scotian I have great respect for that type of legislation because it was in 1918 that Halifax experienced a great explosion, and it was only a few years ago that the mechanism set up to administer funds provided for those injured in that explosion was disbanded. This is what we mean by sunset legislation: examine these Crown corporations and agencies to determine whether they have a job to do, and if they have let them continue doing it; but, if not, disband them and save some of the taxpayers' money.
These moves are only a beginning. We believe individual initiative must be encouraged so as to generate growth and job opportunities. In furtherance of this aim, research and development will be expanded in Canada to promote the export of Canadian goods and services. To help the individual Canadian build a stake in this country we plan to establish a program of tax credits for mortgage interest and property taxes. This one measure alone will go a long way toward stimulating our housing industry while providing new job opportunities for young Canadians.
Unlike the previous speaker, I have read the Speech from the Throne through thoroughly, not once but a number of times, and I believe it gives special recognition to the needs of Atlantic Canada. I say this because it proposes to bring in a

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Crouse
white paper on the future of our fisheries resources prepared in consultation with our fishermen, a large number of whom the previous speaker represents and many of whom 1 represent. There is to be consultation with the fishermen, the fishing industry and the provinces.
As most members are aware, the fishing industry is of fundamental importance to Atlantic Canada and to the wellbeing of a large segment of our people. In my view, there are very few primary industries which at the present time offer opportunities comparable to the fishing industry. Given the right opportunities by way of licences, quotas and markets, for example, our fishermen are capable of doubling their present landed values in a few years. I hope the government when preparing its white paper on the future development of our fisheries resources will give careful consideration to all the problems which presently surround this important industry.
For example, there is a need for extended lines of credit at reasonable interest rates, something the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) will have to examine, to cover the present inflated interest rates brought on by the exorbitant spending of the outfit which was in power before we took over, as a result of which the cost of ship construction and replacement has risen to exorbitant heights. Provision of investment allowances or tax write-offs go a long way toward stimulating ship construction, and while this will be helpful to all classes of operators, the needs of our inshore fishermen as they apply to the construction of public marine works must not be overlooked. In order to ensure that value is received for money expended there must be close liaison with the fishermen and other users, as well as with provincial and local authorities, to ensure the most practical use of wharves, breakwaters, slipways and docking and handling structures. In some areas there are already adequate wharves but unfortunately, due to the action of the sea, they have become silted in and are usable only at high tide. So we have to consider whether further dredging is needed in order to make existing services usable.
I would also point out that it is not sufficient to consider expanding the fishing industry without providing adequate surveillance capacity over our marine resource areas, together with an adequate research and rescue capability to ensure the safety of our fishermen. I hope the white paper will deal also with the need for a better utilization of our shore and sea-based freezer industry and will consider its expansion. If more fish were frozen, processing plants could operate year-round, thereby providing additional employment. I submit we should also examine the need for developing freezer trawlers to preserve catches of presently underutilized species such as silver hake, argentines, offshore herring, mackerel and squid. With oil increasing in price almost monthly it makes no sense whatsoever for our fishermen to throw away these soft species, to throw them back into the sea, especially when they are incidental to a groundfishing operation.
In my constituency one enterprising fishermen has applied for a licence to build a 64-foot freezer trawler so that all the species of catches can be kept in A-l condition prior to landing. When we talk of freezer trawlers we sometimes think

only of huge ships 300 feet or more in length, ice-reinforced and operated on the Hamilton bank off the coast of Labrador. But there are other possibilities for freezer trawlers. It is possible to build a 64-foot freezer trawler and use half the hold for wetfish and have the other half equipped with a freezing unit so that any species caught as incidental to a cod-fishing operation can be put into the freezer section instead of being thrown back into the sea. Everything the fisherman has caught will be utilized and this, I submit, will be vitally necessary as the cost of fishing, especially the cost of oil, continues to escalate.
I submit that the building of these ships will go a long way toward rejuvenating our shipyards and the ancillary business connected with them, while at the same time providing new opportunities for many of our people. This type of program, coupled with the proposals to develop an effective Canadian merchant fleet, should spell the dawn of a new era for all shipbuilding in Canada, and of course this will be vitally important to Atlantic Canada.
It is gratifying to note that the government is committed to making Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990. That is a start, of course. This government, under the leadership of our new Prime Minister, has already given to Atlantic Canada the right to royalties from any offshore oil and gas developments. We do not know at this stage what this means to our future, but I submit it bodes well for that future.
Due to Canada's national oil policy as announced in February of 1961, Atlantic Canada's energy supply was dominated by imported oil to an extent unequalled in any other region of Canada. In fact, in terms of net energy supply, imported oil accounted in 1976 for an 82 per cent share of our needs compared to 54 per cent in Canada as a whole.
While the problems facing the Atlantic region are apparent, there has been little regional agreement on appropriate solutions. One of the early projects of the Council of Maritime Premiers was the creation of a Maritime Energy Corporation which was supposed to adminster most aspects of energy development in the region. Established on February 16, 1979, after signing a comprehensive agreement covering, among other things, the development of Fundy tidal power, the purchasing of the Point Lepreau nuclear unit and a preferred federal credit rating on all MEC contracts, the whole agreement would now appear to have been scrapped by all parties. I hope, now that the federal government is in new hands and in light of the throne speech promise to stimulate and distribute energy in all its various forms, that we will soon see a reassessment-I direct this request to the new Minister of Finance-a new reassessment of the federal government's role as it applies to the Maritime Energy Corporation. I believe that the strengthening of MEC is important to the development and distribution of electrical energy in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
We need it in order to stimulate tidal power beyond the pilot project presently proposed by the Nova Scotia Tidal Power
October 11, 1979

Corporation at Annapolis. The main purpose of the Annapolis project is to test a proposed new design of turbine which, if successful, will reduce the cost of the main Fundy tidal project by some 10 per cent. However, in my view too much time has already been wasted on studies of tidal power development. While I do not believe it is the final answer to our energy needs, we must utilize every energy source available to us in light of our over-all dwindling oil supplies.
In the past six years, our position has worsened and we are dependent on a few producing countries, not all of them friendly to us for various reasons, and on a thin line of oil tankers stretching half way around the world whose cargoes may not always reach their destination in Canada. This is why I say that Fundy must be developed. In fact, we must look at all possible energy sources. We have plenty of coal in Canada and those responsible for the development of energy self-sufficiency in Nova Scotia have indicated that there is a need for the opening of a new coal mine in Cape Breton.
Until this is done, our economic prosperity is endangered by constantly rising power costs. The opening of a new mine at Donkin is a measure that should be given the highest priority by the federal government, in my view. Even if a new mine were opened today, it would be several years before it operated at capacity. Our premier, the honourable John Buchanan, faces a very difficult problem at present. He is well aware of the need for the opening of a new mine in Cape Breton, and I hope, as I said a moment ago, that this project is given priority treatment by the government.
In addition to this, we must take a new look at the use of wood for the generation of electricity, and must re-examine our peat resources. Peat as a fuel for the thermal generation of electric power is an established energy form. In the Soviet Union, for example, peat-fuelled electric power generation plants have a planned capacity of 6,000 megawatts in 1980. By comparison, 5,225 megawatts of power are generated at Churchill Falls. Canada-this is a fact not generally known- ranks second in the world in terms of peat resources, having well over 23 billion tonnes at 44 per cent moisture, compared to the Soviet Union's 180 billion tonnes.
In the Atlantic region peat, for example in Newfoundland, is quite plentiful. About 17 per cent of the land surface in Newfoundland is composed of peat. The other Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, have about 10 per cent of their area in peat resources.
Despite the abundance of this resource, Canada's production of peat for its various uses is very small. In light of the high and increasing cost of oil, interest in peat is increasing, and it is my understanding that Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are undertaking today active peatland inventory programs. These are all forward steps, and I believe it is inevitable that, in the very near future, peat will play an important role in power generation in Atlantic Canada.
We hope that through conservation and the proper use of our coal, as I mentioned a moment ago, of our wood, our tidal power, wind, solar energy, hydroelectric energy and now
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
Canadian propane gas, Nova Scotia will be able to come close to becoming self-sufficient in energy by 1990.
In closing, I commend the Prime Minister and the cabinet for their proposals and I hope that the suggestions I have made will be given fair consideration, with the hope of early implementation of the proposals regarding energy which would be very helpful to Nova Scotia.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to address my first few words to the Chair and join all previous speakers in congratulating the Speaker of the House and also the Deputy Speaker on their appointments, which clearly prove the confidence all hon. members have in the quality and the competence of those who were chosen, or rather chosen again, as both held those offices for several years under the previous government.
Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity, after seven years spent in this House, to thank the electors of the riding of Outremont, who for the third time have given me their support in ever increasing majority. Naturally, I take pride in those results which I also accept with considerable humility, for being chosen to represent as large a proportion of the people obviously means added responsibility.
I do rejoice in that support and also noticed, with some measure of humour, on examining the results in my riding that there were nine or ten candidates, unless I am mistaken, going from the Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democratic Parties, to Marxist and Leninists of all hues and the Rhinoceros Party. It struck me as quite humorous the day following the election to notice that, in my riding, the Progressive Conservative Party had managed the feat of achieving lower results than the Rhinoceros Party. That, I think, gives a pretty good idea of the popularity of that party in the province of Quebec, and the work that awaits it. That is indeed quite a hurdle to jump.
I should also like to thank the people of Quebec for the support they once again gave the Liberal party in that election.
Not only did Quebeckers give the Liberal party a large majority of seats-indeed the largest number of seats ever obtained in Quebec-they also gave us a record percentage of votes, that is, more than 62 per cent. There is no doubt that this is due in the first place to the outstanding qualifications of our leader, the member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau). This is also undoubtedly due to the devotion and efficient work performed by the Liberal members of Quebec for several years in the House. And I am pleased to note that as a result of the election those Liberal members were reinforced by the addition of a substantial number of new, able, experienced and dynamic members who are joining those who sat during the last session and will make of the Liberal team of Quebec in the
94

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
House a group that will promote the interests of all Quebeckers and also, of course, of all Canadians, since for us there is no contradiction in being both a good Quebecker and a good Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues and the Canadian people, I was eager to hear the first Speech from the Throne made by the first Progressive Conservative government in 16 years. I thought-and I was quite wrong-that my colleagues on the other side had benefited from this long sabbatical period of time spent on the side of the opposition and that they would propose a political and economic program which would ease the difficulties our country is experiencing at the present time, because after a period of reflection that had lasted for over 16 years-in fact, it seems that that is more than enough for any party to prepare itself to govern a country-the people of Canada had a right to expect the Progressive Conservative government to act immediately. They also had a right to expect that action to be coherent and responsible. Coherence and a sense of responsibility, the two things the Speech from the Throne we are discussing today obviously lacks. But could it have been otherwise when we know that the Progressive Conservative Party has badly lacked those two qualities for the past 16 years?
Unfortunately, it was easy to foresee that once in power, this inefficiency, while being its trademark, would nevertheless remain inexcusable in Canada's political and economic context. This Speech from the Throne is nothing more than a bunch of spur-of-the-moment campaign promises. It is nothing more than half-baked policies, clearly unsatisfying for all Canadians, men and women alike. Ultimately, this Speech from the Throne reflects the stubbornness and obscurantism of the Progressive Conservative government in the economic field in general, and in the energy field in particular. As a result, instead of facing a so-called responsible government, Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression, of facing a government that is unable to take decisions, that has lost all sense of its responsibilities, that is juggling with complex problems whose outcome be of vital importance for the country and that makes one contradictory statement after the other, and this has been going on for almost five months now. Let's recall, for example, its decision to move the Canadian embassy in Israel and the disastrous consequences it had for Canada on the domestic as well as on the international front. And all the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) could come up with afterwards was that he had underestimated the extent of the Arab protests. Meanwhile we have lost contracts worth billions of dollars and Canada's name has never fallen into such disrepute as it has in the past few months.
Let us not forget that since the beginning of June this government has governed-and this is a figure of speech of course-in a vacuum, without calling Parliament. In fact, this is the first time in our history that our country was governed without Parliament for so long and it is not surprising that

after such a long delay we should feel disappointed when we read what is referred to as the Speech from the Throne.
Let us see on the other hand what President Carter did meanwhile, last summer for example. After realizing that the energy crisis in the United States was as serious as it was here in Canada, he did not lose five or six months procrastinating and making general statements on this issue. He interrupted his schedule for ten whole days, shut himself up with his advisers in Camp David and then released a specific energy statement to the American people. And this was done last summer, at the beginning of August.
Meanwhile, our government again vainly tried to review fully the question, met in Ottawa, in Jasper, at Lake Mousseau and here and there in Canada, met with the provinces, we are told, yet no conclusion has been reached after all those months in a field which is crucial indeed. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have to note that in politics ridicule is not a terminal disease because those across the way would be a very sick bunch indeed.
I would like most of all to deal with the energy question, specially with Petro-Canada. The Speech from the Throne remains oddly silent on the energy question, whereas the government itself had recognized that this would be the major issue which the House would face from now until Chrismas. The throne speech contains merely one paragraph dealing with energy where they keep on uttering the same platitudes we have heard since early June. Yet, we would have expected the government to take this opportunity to state exactly its intentions. But in fact, although the name Petro-Canada is nowhere to be seen in the throne speech, it has to be noted that it is hinted at here and there in the speech where there is mention of Crown corporations and their sale to the private sector.
The Conservative government's resolve, its determination to destroy at all costs, Canada's major oil company, has no solid nor reasonable ground. Arguments such as "make room for free enterprise" or "government has no business in that field" are false arguments in the case of Petro-Canada, because, first of all, they fail to take into account past experience in the field of energy and, in particular, of oil. Second, they underestimate the specifics of the present energy situation both in Canada and abroad. Third, if the government is successful in achieving its objectives in this regard, it will be bringing Canada back on the road to foreign dependence.
Let us take the private enterprise argument. There is no lack of private concerns in the oil industry in Canada. That sector even boasts over 700 private businesses involved in oil. There is no lack. What is also interesting to note is that they are not all small and weak. If one looks at the 500 biggest companies in Canada for 1978, one realizes that among the top ones there is a whole series of oil companies: Imperial Oil, fourth, Shell Canada, tenth, Gulf Canada, twelfth, Texaco Canada, twenty-first, BP Canada, fifty-first, and so on.
October 11, 1979

What is aiso interesting to note, on the other hand, is that in this area, if you look at all the companies I mentioned, this is a sector which is mostly, excessively under foreign control. All the companies I mentioned are American or European multinationals which control the oil market in Canada. In fact, those companies have assets and sales of billions of dollars and indeed together as foreign companies control 91 per cent of assets and 95 per cent of sales in the oil industry in Canada.
In light of that, the existence, the complete continuation and expansion of Petro-Canada are essential to this country if we no longer want only to appear to have control over our resources but also really increase Canadian ownership over resources which belong to Canadians in the first place. In suggesting this I am not saying the role of the private sector is not important-as I have already said, there are 700 of them-and I am not saying either that there is no role for foreign businesses; they have made their contribution in the past, they should continue to do so in the future. But in an industry where competition is as doubtful, in an industry where uncertainty and instability are factors we must continually be taking into account, in an industry where any increase in our dependence on OPEC countries and multinationals will only make the situation worse that it is primarily important that Canadians have, particularly in the oil industry, an effective and disinterested tool-and that tool is Petro-Canada.
In that respect, the operations of Petro-Canada since its creation by the former majority Liberal government is more than adequate evidence of the increase of Canadian participation in the oil industry. We have only to look at the latest annual report of this corporation to realize it.
In 1978, Petro-Canada took part in the drilling of 16 of the 26 wells drilled in the most isolated parts of Canada. Off the shore of Nova Scotia, it took part in the drilling of five wells, and under its own initiative or through its interest in Panarctic Oils Limited it took part in the drilling in eight of the ten wells drilled in the Arctic islands. Finally, in western Canada, Petro-Canda drilled 44 exploration wells.
Petro-Canada also places great importance on the development of our enormous tar sand and heavy oil reserves, and thus it is involved in various projects including that of Syncrude in western Canada. Also, agreements have been reached with Saskatchewan Oil and Gas and Gulf Canada, and there has been an agreement with the government of Saskatchewan concerning projects for the exploration, the development and the accelerated recovery of heavy oil in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, how can a government which claims to be responsible deliberately put an end to all this? Who, for instance, successfully carried out exploration operations in the area of Sable Island after Mobil Oil and Gulf gave up? It was Petro-Canada. Who took up the challenge of prospecting in the most hostile and hardest to reach regions of Canada? Petro-Canada. On whom can the government depend to estimate available reserves and gather the information it requires
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
in the energy field? Petro-Canada. Who, at the height of the Iranian crisis, when Imperial Oil and Exxon were diverting each day to the United States 20,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela which were supposed to come to us, negotiated an agreement with Mexico? The Canadian government, with Petro-Canada.
While wanting to abolish Petro-Canada, the Prime Minister and the minister of energy (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have told us that their ultimate objective was Canadian independence in the field of energy by 1990. Well, this is what they have been telling us since May 22 and even before, but we are still waiting for their plan, that famous plan, and the specifics on how they are going to do it.
I have before me the figures published by the National Energy Board, which is not supposed to be a partisan body, of course. These figures show that in 1978 imported 192,000 barrels of crude a day, net imports after exports, after deducting our foreign sales. The board forecast that we will have to import 826,000 barrels of crude a day in 1990, and 905,000 barrels a day in 1995. As I say, this government is either having delusions when they speak of self-sufficiency within 11 years, or peculiar arithmetic, and I must say, unfortunately, that I often think they have both.
Mr. Speaker, we may believe that if the present course is maintained by the majority of industrialized nations, the oil producing countries will soon demand interstate, intergovernment negotiations. I was pleased to note this very day that the president of Petro-Canada had this to say before the Empire Club in Toronto, and I quote:
The sitution is no longer one in which private oil interests can be expected to always obtain and deliver oil. Each transaction directly or indirectly involves a government presence. Not one drop of oil moves today from the Middle East without a government agreeing to it, and almost every sizeable oil importing nation has its government in the act.
[ Translation]
Who then will be representing the Canadian government if Petro-Canada no longer exists as a true oil company? During the crisis in Iran, when the price of oil on the free markets was reaching disproportionate figures between S30 and $40 a barrel, Walter J. Levi, a leading American expert, an economist of repute, a consultant to both governments and private corporations, was interviewed on the program "Meet the Press" over the NBC network early in 1979. He said:

To avert international crisis, governments will have to step in and recognize that big oil companies and free enterprise programs are just nonsense and would not work.

This is in agreement with the remarks made recently by a Canadian, an expert of repute in Canada, a man with a long

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
experience in energy matters, Mr. Bruce Wilson, who indicated in the Toronto Star, and I quote:

It should be apparent to the new government, which now has the responsibility for ensuring the viability of Canada as a nation and for protecting the interests of the citizens as a whole, that the primary objective of the private sector resource-exploiting industries to maximize profits is incompatible with the need to provide assured supplies of energy for the engines of the economy at reasonable prices.
A decision by the federal government to emasculate Petro-Canada, solely on the basis that it was an election promise, does not give one confidence in the quality or objectivity of the new administration. Rather than disposing of Petro-Canada, the government should be developing comprehensive energy policies and plans designed to head off the bleak future now confronting the nation in the energy field. A much stronger, rather than weaker, federal presence is required.
And I say "amen" to that.

And above all we should not believe that, however the emasculation of Petro-Canada might be achieved eventually, no great harm will be done. Indeed, if the government stands by the public statement made in early September, we would be left only with a skeleton firm, emasculated of its most essential functions and whose profits would not allow it to expand, indeed to continue its exploration and development efforts.
The net result of that absurd proposal will be that we will have two Canadian firms of medium size. One will be nonviable, unable to serve the true interests of Canadian society, and every year it will come and bow before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) to get the money it will need, while the other firm will be viable and will be owned by a number of shareholders who will of course be more concerned with profits and dividends than with the security of our supplies.
Indeed, even the Conservative government of Ontario rejects the approach adopted by the present Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa. I am referring to the paper entitled "Energy Security for the Eighties: a Policy for Ontario". Here is what the government of Ontario had to say in that regard:
Petro-Canada supplements the job being done by the private sector and takes appropriate risks where the private sector is reluctant. Petro-Canada provides Canadians with a better insight into the complexity of finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. Petro-Canada can and should, along with the private petroleum industry, play a leadership role in achieving crude oil self-sufficiency for Canada by 1995. This is the conclusion: Ontario urges the federal government not to reprivatize Petro-Canada but to retain essential functions within a national petroleum company.
Premier Davis is not the only premier with that view. It is shared by a lot of other premiers. It is shared by the premier of British Columbia who, on a CBC radio interview on September 16, said quite clearly that in his view it would be wrong for the Government of Canada to try to follow with Petro-Canada the approach that he had followed with British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. That is the view of the premier of British Columbia himself, and he had very, very

good reasons which anybody could understand to justify that distinction and that argument.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a tour in western Canada where I met representatives of and spokesmen for the oil industry. I was surprised to see the large number not only of ordinary citizens but also of spokesmen for that industry who say, "Now, listen. Petro-Canada is there. We are accustomed to live with it so why touch it? Let Petro-Canada live and work with us; we can work closely with Petro-Canada which, as a Canadian corporation, has been of much service to us even if at the start we had some doubts about its usefulness."
And this view is shared by a great many citizens. I urge all my colleagues opposite to read their correspondence and they will see to what extent Canadians are preoccupied by the whimsical policy of the present government. They should read the results of a Gallup poll that have been published today, a poll made throughtout Canada. Its obvious conclusion is that Canadians are for maintaining Petro-Canada. Seventy five per cent of Canadians want Petro-Canada to continue its operations in the prospecting field. And 57 per cent believe that Petro-Canada should pursue its purchasing activities on the international level, and 54 per cent say that Petro-Canada should be involved in retail sales. Those who think otherwise represent only 7 per cent, 18 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. For a government that pretends to be listening and consulting the people, I must say that I never saw a government as deaf as the one before us.

This government has at least one member from Imperial Oil, and a national director of the Conservative party from Imperial Oil, and assistants in ministers' offices from Imperial Oil, but 1 cannot imagine the members on the other side perceiving themselves as being also members for Imperial Oil. This is a view in which they are completely isolated, isolated from the view of the vast majority of the population. I urge this government, if it believes what it has been preaching, to reconsider its approach and its policy and realize that Canada needs Petro-Canada more now than it needed it in 1975 when it was created.
1 would like to say a few words about our motion and the amendment put forward by the NDP. I think that our motion yesterday put the situation and our stand quite clearly and quite adequately when we suggested that the address be amended by adding the following words:
-and this House condemns the attempt of the government to undermine Petro-Canada and supports the maintenance and expansion of our national petroleum corporation, as the property of all Canadians, as the largest Canadian-owned corporation in the petroleum industry and as a major instrument of Canadian energy policy.
The NDP in their amendment stated:
-and this House calls in particular for the corporation to be designated as the sole importer of off-shore oil, and for the corporation to open retail outlets to serve the people of Canada from coast to coast.
October 11, 1979

When we set up Petro-Canada in 1975 we gave it very wide-ranging powers, and we were right in doing so. Petro-Canada is engaged in all aspects of the oil industry since its creation, through acquisition in particular of ARCO and Pacific Petroleums. It is interesting to see that the retail sales of Pacific Petroleums have increased since the acquisition by Petro-Canada, proportionately more than all of their other competitors. I think that it says something, and that is that the public feel that they would like to support an integrated Canadian oil company.
While in Calgary recently I was flabbergasted to meet the president of a Canadian oil company who informed me that he had now switched to Pacific Petroleums for purchasing the gas for his own car and that he was not buying it any longer from other companies. We are not objecting to Petro-Canada having retail outlets. It is within its powers. The question that arises is whether or not this would be the wisest investment for the company to make at the present time.
I do not think that anybody would argue very strongly that we are short of service stations at the present time and that we need to build more service stations. If Petro-Canada has $1 billion to invest perhaps it should be invested in exploration and development of the resource rather than into adding to the number of service stations, or purchasing existing service stations. Be that as it may, that power is in the act, and Petro-Canada is in a position to take the appropriate decision as to the wisdom of undertaking such a development in due time.
The area in which I question the amendment proposed by the NDP is the proposal to designate Petro-Canada as the sole importer of offshore oil. This question was extensively debated last spring when we put forward the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979. That same proposal came from the NDP at that time. The House debated it for several days and rejected it by a margin of 190 to 13. I believe that there were very good reasons for the proposal being rejected. We do not need a monopoly on the foreign supply of oil. It is essential that Petro-Canada be there and that there is an agency to deal with countries that want to deal with a state agency. But it need not be the exclusive purchaser of oil in all countries, however. Canada is better served if there are several sources rather than a single one. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this line should be maintained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have tried to allow the hon. member some additional time to complete his remarks.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and also offer my congratulations to you, sir, on your reappointment to the Chair. In the last
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
Parliament you had the respect of all hon. members and I am quite sure you will be taking your two new assistants, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) under your wing to make them as efficient as you have been over the years.
We have seen a great start to the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker. There have been a lot of wild statements and charges this afternoon, but very few facts. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said that the government will do away with CMHC. I should like him to present some evidence of that, Mr. Speaker. This government will do no such thing, as we believe CMHC has provided excellent service over the years. It will remain intact.
If some hon. members wonder which party introduced the first unemployment insurance plan in this country I am delighted to inform them that it was a Conservative government in 1935. There was some delay in implementing the plan because of a Liberal filibuster but it eventually went through. This government is interested in the unemployed, Mr. Speaker.
I should also like to speak briefly about the mortgage interest deductibility plan, Mr. Speaker. There has been a lot of negative criticism of the plan, especially from the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who apparently is the housing critic for the official opposition. This policy was introduced by the Progressive Conservatives in 1965, Mr. Speaker, so it was not something dreamed up in the middle of the last election campaign as was the New Democratic Party plan. The Liberals now claim to be concerned about homeowners and renters, but I would point out that they had 17 years in which to introduce a mortgage interest deductibility plan that would do something for the country. Of course they did nothing. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) while in opposition made a major announcement on this subject on September 21, 1978. If the Liberals are so interested in housing and renters they should have introduced their own policy at that time. If a bill had been presented to the House the legislation would be in place by now.
The present economic conditions in the country will present certain difficulties in the implementation of this policy, but it is going to be done, Mr. Speaker. I should like to allay the fears of some hon. members and the Canadian public regarding the program, Mr. Speaker. There have been some wild charges to the effect that renters will not receive any benefit, but I would point out that in the last few years there have been considerable benefits for renters due to the action of the provinces and cities.
For many Canadians renting is viewed as a temporary state of affairs until they can afford to purchase housing. According to a recent survey 90 per cent of young Canadians want to own their own homes. The initiative of this government will make it easier for them to achieve that goal. The Liberals had 17 years in which to make that dream come true but they did nothing about it. They have developed a great interest in it now, however, since we have introduced the plan. As mortgage interest and property taxes are a deductible business expense for landlords, renters are receiving similar benefits already. In

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
some provinces rents have been kept down through means of rent control but very little has been done to make home ownership more affordable.
The plan has some spin-off benefit for renters. As more Canadians, encouraged by the Progressive Conservative tax credits, move into their own homes, more rental accommodation will become available, thus taking pressure off those who chose to continue to rent.
It is impossible to meet the needs of all Canadians with one government program. The old age pension, for example, does nothing for the young, while the child tax credit does nothing for people who do not have children. If it becomes necessary to provide subsidies to renters, this will be done through other means, such as shelter allowances.
The federal government is already involved with provincial governments in the delivery of subsidized housing for low income families and senior citizens through the non-profit housing assistance program, the co-operative housing program, graduated payment mortgages for landlords, and other CMHC programs.
This program is being financed by passing the benefits of the government's restraint program on to Canadians. Renters are not being asked to pay higher taxes to assist homeowners.
It would have been much easier to implement the program in 1965 when this party first introduced it, or even in 1978 when it was again introduced by this party.
At the present time the province of Manitoba, recognizing that rising rents coupled with fixed incomes put terror into the hearts of senior citizens, has wisely designed a rent subsidy program to help 9,000 elderly people. This will cost the relatively low sum of $3.5 million. The province of Ontario has allotted additional moneys to assist senior citizens who are renters or home owners.
We could do a lot more for renters and homeowners and indeed everybody else were it not for the totally irresponsible actions of the previous so-called government over the last 17 years, and particularly the last 11 years. Anyone who wants to challenge that statement should read some of the reports of past Auditors General and also the report of the Lambert commission. The Liberal government was spending $1 billion per month more than was collected in revenue yet Liberals have the audacity to criticize this government and offer advice. With their record they should not even open their mouths.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: It could have been expected that something would have been done to correct the situation after one of those bad reports, but the situation continued year after year. Things did not get better; they got worse. The Lambert commission brought in 151 recommendations in an effort to clear up the mess created by 17 years of liberalism, and stated that Parliament must insist upon full government accounting. That is something this government can promise, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals did not believe in being accountable to the people.

One reason that we cannot do more for renters and home owners is that the interest charges alone on the irresponsible borrowings made by this so-called government that has been replaced, cost taxpayers $23 million per day. This government, of course, now has to pay those bills. That is not an excuse; it is a fact. The bills have to be paid and that is why we cannot give more for everybody. We are stuck with paying Liberal bills.
This government will implement the report of the Lambert commission and bring back control over expenditures. This all came about because the Liberal government changed the rules in 1968 and 1969. The Auditor General has stated he can only account for half the $50 billion budget and that he does not know where that $25 billion is going. A government which has created a situation like that does not need to offer adivce or criticism. They had 17 years to perform miracles, to help everybody out and to get oil and all the rest of it.
We have heard a lot of criticism about health care, and accusations that the Conservative party is opposed to it. That is an out and out lie, Mr. Speaker. It was this party that introduced health care to Canada. The terms of reference were laid out in 1961 by the Diefenbaker government. All the recommendations contained in the Hall commission report at that time were implemented and, as a result, first class health care was introduced in Canada. A Conservative government introduced all these health care plans in conjunction with the provinces. All the terms of reference are here. All were investigated and the recommendations were implemented.
I was happy to read what the current health minister said to the provincial health ministers. He said, "I have been casting about, in my own mind, for the most appropriate person to conduct such a review into health care to make sure these standards are going to be maintained." He stated, "We are extremely fortunate, I think, that the originator of the Hall commission report, Chief Justice Emmett Hall of Saskatchewan, has indicated to me a willingness to take on this job." I understand Mr. Hall will once again review health care in Canada and make any recommendations that are required.
Our health minister has stated that he is proposing to create a national health care institute of Canada. He has already sent a note to the health ministers concerning such an institute, and additional copies of his note will be passed out. We are very much interested in health care in this country because we are the political party that introduced it in the first place.
The New Democrats and the Liberals in Manitoba have spent considerable time attacking the Manitoba government with regard to health care in that province. I want to read this into the record to give an example of what the provinces are doing under difficult times. Health expenditures in Manitoba have risen from $459 million in 1976-1977, to $503 million in 1977-1978, to $525 million last year, and to $570 million this year. There are not the cutbacks that the NDP and the Liberals are raving about, Mr. Speaker. One-third of the provincial budget in Manitoba is spent on health care.
October 11, 1979

1 would like to point out the percentage of increase for health care in Manitoba. Hospital insurance and medicare payments in Saskatchewan are budgeted to increase this year by 4.8 per cent and 8.3 per cent, whereas in Manitoba they are rising by 10 per cent and 8 per cent. Health care will deteriorate in Saskatchewan if that is only the percentage increase they are giving to their hospitals and to the rest of their health care plans. I hope Mr. Justice Hall will start in a province governed by the NDP where they have serious problems.
In the last federal election we were treated to some of the most irresponsible statements I have listened to by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) over national television. He was on TV just about every second night saying that doctors are opting out only in provinces where there are Conservative governments. He left out the province of Saskatchewan which has an NDP government. There are three different schemes in Saskatchewan under which doctors can opt out, and they have allowed doctors to opt out for the last 16 or 17 years. So the NDP says, "We don't like opting out in Conservative provinces but it is all right if the NDP government of Saskatchewan allows opting out." That is an example of irresponsible statements that we get from the NDP, completely misleading the Canadian people.
The NDP got quite a bit of support in the last federal election. They picked up a few seats. But a lot of Canadians have been wondering what on earth they did voting for that party, after hearing statements by a former president of the NDP in Manitoba, Mr. Frank Syms. I have known Frank Syms for many years. He is a harmless little socialist. He has run many times for the NDP unsuccessfully, but finally he has seen the light. Mr. Syms quit the NDP because of a "Commie" takeover.
I will read a report from the Winnipeg Tribune. The article reads, "Long-time NDP member J. Frank Syms has turned in his party card in protest against what he describes as a takeover of the NDP party by apologists for communism and communists." How do you like that? Mr Syms says in the article, "There are too many high profile New Democrats who find nothing good in our system but who entertain no criticism of communism. Over the past five and more years, I have watched with concern and opposed the takeover of the Manitoba NDP machinery by a coalition of militant, radical groups and individuals. They include the more militant of the Status of Women advocates, anarchists, Revolutionary Workers, Party adherents, sympathizers and Trotskyists" and on and on.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like your cabinet.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Those are words from a member of the NDP party for many years, who was a past president of the NDP in Manitoba. He was an NDP appointee, being the head of the liquor board for eight years.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has stated in the House today with regard to deteriorating health care in Manitoba, that its social programs are declining. Obviously he is not acquainted with the facts, and apparently has no intention of getting the facts. I have an example of what one
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
province is doing, and I am sure the others are doing the same thing.
In Manitoba a $138 million program has been undertaken to renovate the health sciences centre. That is a lot of money for a province the size of Manitoba. Breast cancer victims are now eligible for rebates on breast prostheses. Major financial assistance is now available to families purchasing hearing aids for children under 18. A $4 million expansion to the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Centre has been completed. An expanded dialysis unit costing $583,000 has been opened at the health sciences centre. The government has assisted in expansion of the open heart surgery unit at St. Boniface Hospital. Construction of the $32 million Seven Oaks hospital is nearing completion. We did not stop that. It was started by the NDP administration, which is fine. We could have stopped it but we didn't. Extensive fire safety upgrading has been undertaken at a number of Manitoba hospitals and personal care homes. Since 1977 $36.4 million has been committed to provide 1,291 personal care beds, and $10 million of this figure has come from the private sector. Seventy-five per cent of pensioner home owners have been provided with full school tax relief.
On and on it goes, and yet these people have the audacity to stand up in this House and say we are against senior citizens and against people who are sick. One-third of the budget is being spent on health care, and as you can see by the items I have just put on the record they are completely misleading the Canadian people when they stand up in this chamber and make ridiculous statements.
The NDP and the Liberals have used this chamber to attack the Manitoba government on other issues. This practice was started in the last Parliament. In Manitoba most of the federal election was spent on debating policies of the provincial government. The NDP did not have any of its own so it started attacking the present Conservative administration with a lot of false information. The economy was a popular subject. In the last two years under the Conservative government, 11,000 new jobs have been created. This is nearly triple the rate of the NDP. All of these jobs have been in the private sector and do not represent a burden on the taxpayer.
Another interesting announcement was made last week by a minister in the Manitoba government that four of the government Crown corporations that they had sold to the private sector are all thriving and have all hired more employees. They are doing a great job now that the government has its sticky fingers out of it. This past summer 8,631 summer jobs were created for students by private industry. In 1978 private capital investment, the real generator of jobs, increased by 22 per cent. Manufacturing investment is going up by 34 per cent in 1979, double the national rate. Yet members opposite say the economy is terrible there. Commercial building permits in the city of Winnipeg in 1978 increased 3,800 per cent. That is an indication that things are going very well. Just imagine if the NDP came back in. That sends shivers up and down my spine. In the last Parliament I read many statistics into the record which I obtained from financial institutions which were

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
assisting businesses in moving out of Manitoba when the NDP was in power there. The loss was staggering. The amount of money leaving and the number of jobs lost were staggering.
Manitoba has the third lowest unemployment rate in Canada. Exploration spending in the mining and the oil industries has almost doubled. Mining exploration under the NDP in Manitoba came almost to a grinding halt with the minister they had in charge of northern development and mining.
Leadership has been shown in Manitoba. Hydro rates have been frozen for a period of five years in order to assist the people of Manitoba. Since July, 1979, Manitobans have enjoyed the third highest minimum wage in Canada. The eight years the NDP were in power in Manitoba were disastrous for us. It was a very costly experiment. We saw the NDP in the Chinese food business. I like Chinese food, but I certainly do not want to buy it from any NDP government. That went bankrupt. Then they got into the aeroplane manufacturing business. The last thing in the world a provincial government should get itself involved in is manufacturing aeroplanes. Another $40 million to $50 million was lost by the people of Manitoba. On and on it goes.
I want to get back to health care for a moment. Not all members of the NDP are irresponsible. I have here a statement by a former NDP leader, Mr. Tommy Douglas. He was referring to the Hall report back in the 1960s. He said it was one of the finest reports ever written on the subject. He credited Mr. Diefenbaker and his Conservative government with laying the foundation stone for medicare. I think Mr. Douglas should be given credit for recognizing that fact. I do not expect that he would be going around the country making such irresponsible statements as those made by his NDP colleagues. According to them, our party is against medicare, hospitals, senior citizens, and all that irresponsible nonsense.
I do not know what kind of constructive criticism we will be receiving from the Liberal party, now that it is in opposition. Liberals seem constantly to be squabbling about leadership. There are many newspaper articles being released by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). He came here in 1972, the same time I did. He writes letters stating that he wants his leader replaced, or that he has some other complaint about his party. I have never heard him say anything good about his party. I do not know why he wants to stay in the Liberal party when he has so many complaints about the way its members conduct themselves. He is concerned about Liberal caucus members who have been given specific responsibilities. The hon. member for Vaudreuil complains that his colleagues are making public policy statements without any discussion in caucus. The Liberal party is very disjointed. There are articles: "Trudeau under attack", "Disgruntled Liberals urge end to former PM's reign". They are certainly having their problems over there.
I would like to speak briefly about Petro-Canada. I do not know what everybody is getting all excited about. Petro-Canada has certainly become a very emotional issue. The

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has stated that we are going to be keeping many parts of Petro-Canada. He has stated that the negotiation of state to state contracts for the importation of crude oil, where necessary, will be looked after by us. He has stated that there will be promotion of exploration in frontier areas with increased Canadian participation and at a pace which cannot be expected of the private sector alone. We will work with them.
I was in Calgary recently at a Canada-U.S. parliamentary meeting. We met with Petro-Canada officials there. They showed us films of some of their developments which are being undertaken in conjunction with the private sector. We have no objection to that at all. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated that promotion, along with frontier exploration, of tar sands and heavy oils research and development will be done by Petro-Canada. I do not know what the Liberal energy critic is getting so excited about. Those are things he is concerned about, and we are not going to abandon them.
The energy critic pointed out that there are 700 oil companies in Canada. I do not know how many oil companies we need, but that seems to be an awful number of oil companies; plus we have Petro-Canada. I am sure the task force, when it turns in its report later on this month, will be making its recommendations. Whether we implement them or not I cannot say right now, and neither can the government. We have to wait until the task force files its report.
I would like to give hon. members an idea of the size of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps there are a number of branches of that department in existence which could perform the same functions Petro-Canada performs. There are over 300 branches, divisions and agencies employing some 4,000 people. Just look at the government telephone directory-11 pages! What are they all doing? Perhaps they could be performing many of the functions of Petro-Canada. 1 think we must look carefully at duplication. We are taking a responsible position. There is nothing wrong with reviewing a federal government department or agency. There are 400 others which we have to review to find out what they are doing. They will have to justify their existence.
We are acting in a responsible manner in reviewing all these various government departments. We are not just going to close our eyes and let them operate on their own. We do not know whether they are operating efficiently, or whether they are required, or anything else. We have a responsibility to Canadian taxpayers to find out if all these 400 Crown corporations and the hundreds of divisions and branches in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are required. We are taking a responsible position. Because we do that we will be criticized. We should be praised for checking to see if taxpayers' money is being spent properly. I do not see anything wrong with doing that, but that is the kind of thing that we get from the Liberals and the NDP.
The Conservative party was interested in energy long before the Liberal party even thought of it. I remember when the roads to resources program was introduced in the fifties by the
October 11, 1979

Diefenbaker government. That was ridiculed by the Liberals. Canada would be well on the road to being self-sufficient today if that program had been carried on when the Liberals came back to office in 1963, but they disbanded it and made a lot of smart aleck remarks about our building roads from igloo to igloo, and that sort of thing.
I would like to quote from a speech made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who has been involved in energy for many years in this country and who worked with our former leader, Mr. Diefenbaker, with respect to the roads to resources program. He spoke at the opening of the Dempster highway, which was delayed for about seven or eight years by the Liberals. He said:
Actually, the Dempster highway was one of the main anchors of the whole concept of the roads to resources program. If one looks at a map of Canada on a conic projection, it will be seen that Canada from Labrador to Yukon is a part of a circle of land that centres on the Arctic Islands.
These islands were once part of the tropics of the earth. From Stefansson's time, the eyes of the world's explorers were focused on this potential treasure house of resources. Stefansson named several of the islands after ministers of the cabinet that sponsored his explorations. This angered Mackenzie King who proceeded to name an island after himself.
That is typical. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain also stated:
When I became minister in 1957, I immediately tried to pull all the information together on how we could get a road through to the Arctic coast as fast as possible. From my analysis of the Patey report of 1952, based on U.S.A. resources, I knew that Canada should have access to Arctic Islands hydrocarbons by 1980.
This was back in 1957. Just imagine what would have been the result of continuing that program.
We are very concerned about energy. Energy has been a priority of the Conservative party for many years. The hon. member went on to say that when he became a minister he found a map by some unknown civil servant in the old department of the interior which projected generalized routes to the Arctic. He added:
I found oil and gas regulations which gave everything to the finder. The regulations were obsolete. The department had no real resource people left in it so I went to resource people in industry. Dr. Link, Dr. Sproule and my brother, all of whom had then retired, and they assisted in the roads to resources program.
I just want to make it clear that we are the party which has shown leadership over the years in introducing the unemployment insurance plan and mortgage deductibility. We introduced the roads to resources program years ago, and these constant references to us by Liberals and spokesmen for the NDP as a party not conscious of people's needs are entirely unfounded. Mr. Speaker, we are more conscious of people's needs in this country than the NDP and Liberal parties put together. Back in 1973, even in opposition we were pursuing a natural resource policy for Canada. I have in my hand a number of documents we put out in 1973 with regard to oil supplies and all the rest.
I hope this will straighten out the position to some extent, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your indulgence.
The Address-Mr. MacLellan


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to congratulate you on your reappointment to your office. I would like to say how pleased I am to be elected as the member of Parliament for the constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys. As such, and on behalf of my constituents, I should like to thank Senator Robert Muir for his 22 years of fine service to the people of that constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: As well, 1 should like to congratulate Senator Muir on his elevation to the Senate. I can truthfully say I share in his success.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I am somewhat reassured during the first three days of the sitting of this, the Thirty-first Parliament, because 1 believe that once the news of the weather in Ottawa this week reaches Cape Breton I may be unopposed in the next federal election.
With reference to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said yesterday that Canadians should raise their expectations. From what we have heard since May 22 the only Canadians with any expectations are those who form the present government. Certainly we in Atlantic Canada cannot have any expectations as long as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) is running loose. Prior to May 22 certain areas in Atlantic Canada were promised assistance in the form of the decentralization of various government departments. But following the May 22 election the President of the Treasury Board decreed that this should not take place and the excuse he gave was that the government had to save money, but that money should be saved only in some of these constituencies.
In Nova Scotia decentralization plans were cancelled only in two constituencies represented in this Parliament by opposition members. This is more than just a coincidence when one considers that there are only three constituencies in Nova Scotia represented by opposition members and that decentralization plans had not been made for the third constituency.
In Cape Breton-The Sydneys decentralization was to take the form of almost 400 jobs for the area. Land was purchased and the architectural work for a new building was well under way. There is no question but that in addition to providing jobs decentralization would have revitalized the downtown area of Sydney, from which there would have been a spin-off effect evident in new stores and buildings.
1 feel the fact that the government has broken most of the promises it made during the election campaign-and kept the ones it should have broken-is unacceptable to the people of Canada. It is certainly even less acceptable to break the promises of the previous government. The actions of the President of the Treasury Board amount to nothing more than petulant vindictiveness and I appeal to the hon. gentleman to reconsider his action of cancelling decentralization in the
102

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. MacLellan
Sydney and Antigonish areas. Decentralization planned for Sydney has an importance to that region which far outweighs the cost involved.
The Cape Breton economy cannot withstand the cancellation of these decentralization plans. The latest figures given by the department of development in Nova Scotia showed an unemployment rate of 17.4 per cent in industrial Cape Breton. We are not asking for charity but merely seek an early investment by the Government of Canada in the future of our area. We have no doubt that if our economy follows the course it should take, our economy will be viable in the future. However, we are presently trying to keep our communities intact until such time as the modernization of Sydney Steel, the opening of new coal mines and a more enlightened approach by Canadian National Railways and CN Marine put the Cape Breton economy in a positive position.
With respect to Sydney Steel Corporation, the situation is serious. The British North America Committee has stated that the cost of producing basic products is increasing at three times the rate of inflation and if governments such as ours fail to take positive action there will be a shortage of these basic products by the end of the twentieth century. One of these basic products is steel. Despite this very sobering information, the government has chosen to do nothing to aid Sydney Steel Corporation financially. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay), who during the last Parliament was very vocal in trying to right the wrongs of this country, is suddenly very quiet. I guess he has found that things are very different when you get on the other side of the investigation.
The minister responsible for DREE has promised that substantial aid will be forthcoming. He has not said how much, or when, but he has gained the faith of the people of Cape Breton. Steel workers and merchants alike genuinely believe the minister when he says substantial aid for Sydney Steel is forthcoming. Let us mark this moment, Mr. Speaker. Let us hope that the minister, who in the past has been so much on the side of the individual, will keep his word to the people of Cape Breton who have placed their faith in him. Of course he will need to obtain money, and this brings us back to the President of the Treasury Board. I say to him that Sydney Steel can be profitable and urge him to have some faith in the people of Cape Breton.
It would seem that the government is fast becoming elitist and the Speech from the Throne reflects this. However, I do take some heart from the comment that the government will build upon the strength of the regions. Sydney Steel is a strength in eastern Canada, and if the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the President of the Treasury Board has any doubts on this question, I would be very glad to inform them of why this is so. In fact I have been trying for over three months to see the Minister of DREE, and now I think he is in danger of giving me an appointment for next week, for which I am very grateful.


Walter David Baker: Why don't you just walk across the floor?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is easier; why don't you?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: No, thank you. The penalty is too high. You have a good sense of humour.
Coal is our strength, and everybody in Nova Scotia realizes that. Even the Nova Scotia government has come to realize that. Nova Scotia suffers from extremely high energy costs and wishes to use thermal coal to generate electricity. The Nova Scotia government is constructing two generating stations, and plans for two more, but there is only one problem, namely, a shortage of coal.
Can we possibly believe that in an area with a 17.4 per cent rate of unemployment, and with coal deposits which have already been confirmed, there can be a shortage of coal? The reason for this predicted shortage is that the federal government has not yet decided whether it will open new mines. If we want to know why there is unemployment in Cape Breton, we only have to look to the government which is not investing in Cape Breton even when investment there is a sure thing. I am asking the Minister of DREE and the President of the Treasury Board to get out of neutral and to give the financing to the Cape Breton Development Corporation that would see the development of the Prince mine near Sydney mines, and the Donkin mine, and which would bring it to completion. This is too urgent a request to be denied.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there is an urgent need to develop coal mines, mainly because of the ever increasing cost of oil and the time needed to bring a coal mine on stream.
As I said earlier, I think the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the President of the Treasury Board are stuck in neutral. If they are stuck in neutral, then certainly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Howie) are stuck in reverse. Canadian National Railways and Via Rail are downgrading their services in eastern Nova Scotia. Of course antiquated and inefficient services will not be used, and when they are not used CN in its typical fashion will use that as the reason they are not needed and should be abandoned. I ask the Minister of Transport to look into CN and Via Rail services in eastern
October 11, 1979

Nova Scotia. This is a serious matter which demands immediate attention.
1 should like to close on the most incredible note of all concerning the situation which exists in the Cape Breton area. We have an unemployment rate of 17.4 per cent and we have CN Marine operating between North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland. Because of the unemployment rate, one would think the federal government would upgrade that operation so as to get the maximum benefits of this operation for industrial Cape Breton. Wrong!
Clarke Transportation Canada Ltd. receives a subsidy of approximately $16 per ton to ship from Montreal to Newfoundland. CN Express has given a commitment to Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. which operates between Halifax and Newfoundland to ship a guaranteed number of tractor-trailers, all of this to compete with a fellow Crown corporation and deny jobs to an area which greatly needs them. This is contrary to the fact that the fastest route to Newfoundland is through North Sydney. The Department of Transport and Canadian National, with the acquiescence of CN Marine, are giving the cream of the cargo to private firms to the detriment of CN Marine and the North Sydney area.
The right hon. Prime Minister said that he is committed to the small community lifestyle. To that 1 say small communities cannot exist without jobs. There is a systematic and routine procedure by the Department of Transport and CN Marine to make the facilities at North Sydney so bad that no one will want to use them. If the facilities are not used, the abandonment will be justified.
There is very little advertising of the CN facilities between North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques. As far as average Canadians know, if they want to go from North Sydney to Port-aux-Basques, they would have to put their luggage between their teeth and swim. I appeal to the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of State (Transport) to look into the injustice of the CN Marine operation and to upgrade the North Sydney service as should be done. The subsidy to Clarke Transportation Canada Ltd. and the agreement with Federal Commerce and other private companies are wrong, and I urgently request their termination. People of North Sydney are being unjustly dealt with, and this injustice should be corrected. In addition, cancelling the subsidy to Clark Steamships Limited would greatly aid the President of the Treasury Board, because with the money saved he could proceed with decentralization in the Sydney area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question, or shall we wait two or three minutes?


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity of joining in this debate on the motion in reply to that very excellent and welcome throne speech His Excellency the Governor General delivered earlier this week. It was a throne speech unlike many others I have
The Address-Mr. Andre
heard in that it was devoid of a lot of what one columnist called purple prose. It was in fact a terse description of the plans and programs of this government for the coming legislative term.
Some members on the opposition benches have decried the fact that there was nothing new in the throne speech. Several members of the media have said there were no surprises. It was not intended that there should be any surprises. We campaigned earlier this year outlining the programs, policies, and activities or actions we would implement as a government, and the people of Canada by their vote approved of that program. We are now carrying forward our promise to implement it.
The government has clearly indicated it intends to fulfil its commitment to reduce government involvement in the lives of individual Canadians, and its involvement in the economy. We intend to reduce the profligate and wildly extravagant spending patterns that have become the norm in Canada. We intend to reduce the $12 billion deficit, and balance the budget. We do not intend to continue the practices of the previous government of saddling future generations with our extravagances.
The government intends to reduce the involvement of government in the lives of Canadians in other areas. It is the government's intention to reduce its involvement by regulation, and thereby reduce the burden that imposes. We intend to reduce these involvements that result when we have a government, as we have had in the past, which assumes it knows what is best for Canadians, and knows better than the individual what is right, what is proper, and what will lead to a great future. We recognize and have confidence in the ability of Canadians as individuals. We recognize that it is the Canadian citizen, the Canadian individual who is most important, and that if we look after the interests of the Canadian citizen the country's interest will be looked after very well indeed.
That was the thrust of the throne speech. It was not intended to be surprising, but to contain those things we committed ourselves to a long time ago. There was nothing secret. We explained our programs to the people of Canada, they cast their ballots, and now we are going to follow through with those commitments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I take a certain amount of pride in certain parts of the throne speech and the reiteration of those commitments, particularly those aspects dealing with the area of Crown corporations, an area in which I involved myself to a very large degree while in opposition. I am delighted to note the progress which has been made in this very important area since May. I am delighted to note the actions already taken by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). I was delighted to note the commitment in the throne speech that we will soon have a Crown corporations' bill presented to the House to put in place a structure that will assure us that never again will an auditor general be able to say, as was said two years ago, that the degree of financial management and control of Canadian

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Malone
Crown corporations was significantly below minimum acceptable standards.
We are going to stop that wastage. We intend to make sure the Crown corporations which remain in federal government hands are run efficiently, effectively, and in the best interest of Canada and Canadians. We are also going to take a look at all these corporations and ask a very simple question: if these Crown corporations were privately owned, would there be any good and compelling reason to nationalize them? If the answer to that question is in the negative, the government will examine the ways by which they might be put back into private hands, thereby fulfilling our commitment, a commitment of which we informed the Canadian people and of which they obviously approved.
I could go on at great length on this subject, Mr. Speaker, but, not wanting to foul up other schedules that may now be in place, I will sit down.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: After the privilege of serving in this House for five years, Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot come here at this time and pretend to make my maiden speech. But even after some 200 interventions during the last Parliament I am still in a sense making my maiden speech this evening since 1 now represent the newly named area of Crowfoot rather than Battle River.
I should like to take a few minutes to reflect on my constituency, something I did not do the first time I took part in debate in this House. I do so because this will provide a nice lead to a concern I should like to share with the Parliament of Canada this evening.
Chief Crowfoot was one of Canada's great men. He took a group of people through that very devastating period from 1860 to 1870, a period during which the Indians of the prairies lost everything they depended upon for their livelihood. They lost their source of energy, their source of food, their source of housing, and their ability to maintain a certain lifestyle. All this disappeared with the disappearance of the buffalo. Chief Crowfoot saw the obligation of leading his people through that tragic and devasting period.
It was during that period of time that Chief Crowfoot lost his entire family to smallpox. He was cited by the first prime minister of this country for his tremendous nobility, wisdom, and vision of the future. Chief Crowfoot rebelled against Sitting Bull in Montana and refused to fight with him in Canada. He resisted the Crees and opposed them during the Riel rebellion. Chief Crowfoot has left his mark on early western Canadian history through his fine ability to lead, to speak, and to make his point.
Let me quote directly from what Chief Crowfoot said at the time of the signing of Treaty 7. At that time, an aging man, he said, "In a little while I will be going from amongst you. Where I have come from and where 1 shall go, I do not know. What is life? It is like the flash of the firefly in the night, it is like the breath of the buffalo in the wintertime, it is like the little shadow that races across the grass and loses itself in the sunset." A person who would say those lines is obviously a man

of the land, and it is to that subject that I wish to address myself tonight.
We have heard with just cause concerns tonight and in previous days about energy. We cannot diminish the fact that there is an energy problem, but I submit that the energy crisis in this country as painted by many is so minuscule, so infinitely small in proportion to another greater problem to which Canadians must very quickly address their attention, and that is the rapid disappearance of our agricultural lands.
Four-fifths of the world's population suffer from malnutrition. Approximately 12,000 children a day under the age of 5 are dying from starvation, and some 70 million human beings suffer permanent and irreversible brain damage every year from the lack of protein. In terms of a world perspective there is no crisis so important as that of retaining our source of food production.
The fact of the matter is that there are only two sources of food. One is soil and the other is water. Our water is basically established. Fisheries supplies will increase and decrease in accordance with their management. But the fact about our soil is that we are not making it any more. There are of course some exceptions, and I will come to those a little later in my address.
Half of the agricultural lands of Ontario are now permanently gone, and they are not coming back. There are a great number of acres of additional Ontario land that is tremendously threatened. I come from the province of Alberta. It is a fairly large province, not the largest in Canada but it would encompass most of the countries of Europe. While we are looked upon as a province that has traditionally had agriculture as its number one industry, the truth of the matter is that of the seven classes of soil, our province has only one per cent of class one agricultural soil.
There are some very interesting and important facts that we should recognize. One is the agricultural pattern of how our country was established. Three members of my party and three members of the official opposition party last November had the privilege to join in some good friendship and in some sincere hard work. We had the occasion to visit in the Middle East. While we were there I noted the rich fertile valleys of Egypt and some other Middle Eastern countries, and to see the villages on the rocky hilltops and the larger cities on the tops of mounds amid the rocks. The first thought I had was of the great wisdom of the forefathers of those countries who decided to build their cities there. But it did not have to do with wisdom at all in the sense of agricultural lands. It had to do with the fact that culturally they defended from the top of the mount down. It was easier to shoot a bow and arrow and a cannonball down than it was to shoot upward.
Likewise, here in Canada, we established this country basically on the principles of agrarian society. The old pioneers who came west knew something about fertility. They knew that the deep, rich, black soil was where the poplar trees grew tall and straight. So it is not without coincidence that the cities
October 11, 1979

of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Edmonton and Grande Prairie are all built in the middle of old geological lake beds of silted out soil, the best of our agricultural lands. Of the cities of the prairies that I have just mentioned, I have included every one of the important cities except for Calgary and Medicine Hat. That brings us to the very serious fact of agricultural land uses.
Of our class one and two soil, 50 per cent of all that remains in Canada today is within 35 miles of our largest 22 cities. When we take a look at the program and planning of urban acreage sprawls across the country, we can see that we are facing a crisis situation of paramount importance because our agricultural lands are decreasing at a rate that is far, far too rapid.
Let me put this into perspective. In the world today there is one acre of agricultural land for every citizen on earth. In Canada there are three acres of agricultural land for every Canadian. By the year 2005, if we make no change in our agricultural land policies in this country, we will have three quarters of an acre of agricultural land for every Canadian. As I began my talk about agricultural land tonight, I mentioned that there were some 12,000 children a day under the age of five dying of starvation. That is yesterday, 12,000; today 12,000; tomorrow, another 12,000; and by the year 2005 without any jurisprudent change in the direction that we are going, we will have less agricultural land in Canada than the present world average for world citizens. That is totally and absolutely unacceptable.
I have raised this concern because I see in my own province the city of Edmonton, a fine and a beautiful city, now making application to expand its boundaries by some six times its present size. That cannot go unchallenged. More important, when I mentioned earlier tonight that the cities of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Edmonton and Grande Prairie were all built in the middle of old geological lake beds, the fact of the matter is that every one of those cities has all kinds of ample room to expand without going on to agricultural lands, except for the city of Regina. I submit that it is not a question of whether we have acreages nor a question of whether or not we have lawns. Canada does not have to live in concrete towers. We have the second largest land mass in the world. The problem is that there is only 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent of our land in the class one and class two soil zones in climatically favourable areas.
That means that we have to begin to pick and choose where we put our transport systems, and where we put our cities. We have to put a priority on food production in the recognition that today when we eat a meal 40 per cent of what we pay for came from some other country. We think of Canada as a country that is rich and able to produce and export food because we sell a great deal of wheat and we have a red meat market that exports from the country.
But we also depend very heavily on green vegetables and fruits which come from elsewhere. When we consider the simple fact that 40 per cent of what we pay goes somewhere else, then this soil is not something to be wasted. Unfortunate-
The Address-Mr. Malone
ly I will have to pass by this subject without dealing with it in the kind of detail that I would like tonight because I do not have my notes with me.
1 want to share with the House what some other countries are going through today because of the realization of what the land is worth. In Holland, 21 per cent of the whole country is recaptured land. They are now building a dike that will take
1,600,000	acres of land from the North Sea, but it will be 11 years before it comes into full agricultural production. Many people in Holland live in boat houses on the canals because the land is too precious to use for building.
Throughout Peru, throughout Asia and much of India, the mountains have been terraced up one side and down the other, the steps honed by human beings with shovels. Much of the soil is infertile; it contains no nitrogen, no phosphorus, no potassium. They start from bedrock and build animal dung and fibre up to the surface in order to develop the land. Throughout much of the subcontinent enormous draining programs are being established in order to try to recapture that little bit of the vital element that produces food, namely, soil.
We in Canada have grown up thinking that soil is dirt, not recognizing that all through the history of mankind every advanced culture has started from the foundation of a ready supply of food and a cheap source of energy. The sources of energy were not always oil and gas, or an adequate coal or wood supply. In the Greek or Roman period the energy source was mainly the slave trade. That is not a condition that any of us in the House today would endorse, but nevertheless they had cheap energy. Interestingly, an analysis of the history of cultures that failed shows that everyone of them fell as a result of war or the loss of their food rather than lack of an energy source.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have no energy crisis; we have a systems crisis. We have all the pulp we need to make energy from wood; we have the sun, we have the wind, we have nuclear. Like it or not, it is there; we may not want to use it but that is a decision for Parliament to make. There are an infinite number of ways in which we can develop energy. What we need, Mr. Speaker, are the systems. There is no infinite way to develop a food capacity, however, if we destroy one of the two things that produce food.
I submit an activity like the plan of the city of Edmonton to expand its boundaries is not something about which we can say, "Shame on you; you should not be doing that." No mayor is going to ask the people to re-elect him saying, "Look what I have done. I stopped all the growth in this city. Because I stopped the growth I have saved agricultural land; therefore, you should re-elect me." That is not going to happen and no one can blame city fathers for wanting their cities to grow.
If we are to take a responsible attitude toward agricultural land use, then policies must be developed by one of the two upper levels of government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

The Address-Mr. Malone


Arnold John Malone: That means that the provinces and the federal government ought to play a more significant role than they have in the past. In this chamber we must realize that resources are obviously a provincial right. Because I believe that agricultural land use is such a very important long-term issue, I would encourage this House to do what it can to persuade the provinces to co-ordinate and concentrate their efforts on something that is going to be vital for our children, our grandchildren and, indeed, our great grandchildren. It is of paramount importance that we do not continue to let other countries with less developed resources than ours, spend virtually all their human energy in the search for some adequate form of food production such as moving back dikes into oceans, or carving away at mountains, while in this country we use some of the best soil in the world as backfill for basements.
As 1 said earlier, Mr. Speaker, all the aforementioned cities on the prairies, except Regina, have alternatives from which to choose. The city of Edmonton wants to expand its boundaries and, as I said, we cannot blame them for that. Fortunately, however, a move of about 15 or 20 miles to the northeast of Edmonton opens into a large area of solonetzic soil which could easily accommodate a city of vast size.
We have an obligation to get the message out clearly, to get it out often, and to never cease realizing that soil is something we cannot waste today and make again tomorrow-that it is somehow like energy, and when the oil is gone, we can use coal, and when the coal is gone, we can use nuclear. We cannot eat coal and we cannot eat nuclear and we cannot eat sunrays, Mr. Speaker. We need food, and food comes from soil or from water.
We hear of young people in the farming communities of this country who want to go into farming. Sometimes when they are asked what their plans are they reply, "I am going to be just a farmer." Mr. Speaker, farming is the business of food production, the most important business in the world. No society ever advanced that did not have that as its first industry either through the ready production of food within the society itself or very ready access to food purchased fom neighbouring societies.
We in this House must recognize this as a matter of immense, long-term consequence. We must view it in the perspective of the ancient societies where land ran out. In the districts of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of the Middle East people did what most other cultures of that time did when their food ran out-they moved somewhere else. That is basically what has happened in modern societies; when we ran out of food we moved to a new, fertile land to find a food supply. Then, Mr. Speaker, some fool found that the world was round, and now that we have occupied it all, there ain't no more. This is all we have and it is limited.
I want to conclude by saying that in representing the constituency of Crowfoot I am following a man who as an Indian leader of the prairies recognized very clearly the importance of food, the importance of nature and of living in harmony with it. I would hope that we can somehow imprint upon the minds of parliamentarians and of all Canadians that

we must give much greater recognition to the one sure thing we know about soil: they are not making it any more and, by golly, we need it.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate and thank the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. We must admit that it is not easy to shed some of the apprehensions we feel when we stand and speak in the House. We all feel a little nervous. Now that I have congratulated them, I should like to tell these hon. members that tradition compels us to be extremely polite with those who make their maiden speeches in the House and that we will tend to be less and less polite as time goes by.
I should like also to congratulate you and your colleagues on your appointments Mr. Speaker, and wish you the best of luck during this Parliament where debates will no doubt be dramatic at times. Finally and more especially, I would like to say how much I am grateful to my constituents of Ottawa-Vanier who were kind enough to re-elect me as their member. It is an honour which I accept in ail humility and, in addition to expressing my thanks, I can assure them that I will try to fill that important position by using my few qualifications with the appropriate dignity.
The part of a member, Mr. Speaker, as we know quite well, is to serve as an intermediary between the individual and the government machinery, that enormous and anonymous institution managing public affairs. Each of us tries to follow and understand the problems and decisions which directly affect him while that enormous anonymous machinery takes decisions for us. In addition to the many requests which they receive, members of parliament write to ministers and officials to obtain information that they will pass on to their constituents. This means that while they listen carefully to get acquainted with the views of their constituents, they must also try to think it over before taking a position which will be that of most of their constituents.
As a member of Parliament, all matters of concern to Canadians concern me. But, Mr. Speaker, my first duty lies with the concerns of my electors of Ottawa-Vanier. I love all Canadians, but I also love dearly the electors of Ottawa-Vanier, and I shall allow myself a few comments on my riding.
The city of Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, and the national capital region have become economically dependent because it is the seat of the federal government. It is quite natural that the main industry of the capital of a country should be the government of that country. However, to ensure economic stability, and bearing in mind the impact on the local economy of the measures announced by the present government, we will
October 11, 1979

have to seek and find, here in the area, a greater economic stability based on a policy of diversification and growth, in order for the city to have fewer of the characteristics of a one-company town or more of the several-companies town. The cities of Ottawa and Vanier must in the future take fuller advantage of the facilities found in the area. The national capital area must in the future make better use of the natural resources and its partly developed possibilities. There is need for closer co-operation between the numerous municipalities, the various levels of government in the area; the aim should be to draw them all together.
In Ottawa-Vanier, the sustained revival of the lower town area, the city of Vanier and other sectors of downtown Ottawa, will make of it an important centre of attraction for the area. The development of Rideau Centre-God knows it has been discussed in this House-will encourage promoters and small business whether it be restaurants, theatres, both cinema and legitimate, or boutiques. It is a healthy thing for downtown Ottawa to have a shopping centre as a counterpart of the shopping centres which in the last few years have multiplied in suburban areas. City cores should perhaps be given new life in order for our large centres to offer spots where life is worth living. We are also all aware of the fact that the city of Ottawa and the surrounding area are dominated by a private sector which is oriented towards services, many of which are related to the federal government. There is no doubt that if the federal government wants to reduce the number of civil servants- which is the present policy of this government-more entre-prises will disappear or run into financial difficulties. So it is very urgent to take measures to alleviate that dependence on the federal government and to endeavour to find other economic generators.
The national capital area offers tremendous opportunities. It can become a research and development centre of first importance. The Government of Canada and the universities in this area-we have two-do a lot of research, especially in agriculture, natural sciences or communication techniques. The activities of the federal government and those institutions of higher learning give Ottawa and the surrounding area the opportunity to attract a private sector in research and development in an area which can hardly be compared with other areas in the country. So we must attempt to diversify, while attracting new industries to Ottawa and the national capital region.
That is why any proposal aimed at growth and diversification opens promising perspectives. The surest way to growth is the development of existing opportunities, and I am not going to speak of all opportunities, because I would not finish tonight. I am thinking of tourism, light industry, small factories, and the like. Mr. Speaker, there is enough potential here to give our region the economic vigour it once had. These ideas, Mr. Speaker, could easily be pursued or implemented through planning and co-operation procedures, action which
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Gauthier would involve the private sector, the regional government, the regional municipalities and the National Capital Commission. Meetings to this end have already been held. One in particular was held last August with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) at which time a resolution was passed to have the President of the Treasury Board set up a panel of experts to study the impact of government decisions on the stability of the local economy. The President of the Treasury Board promised to set up this panel before the end of September. Nothing has yet been done, or at least nothing has been said publicly which would show that he has kept his promise. Since he is made to bear the responsibility for public service cutbacks, one is led to believe that he either is not as interested as he should be in this region or else he does not live up to his word. We shall see!

I would like now to turn my attention to other matters dealing with what the Conservative party has led us to believe is their social policy. As Liberals, we on this side are dedicated to the individual. Our dedication to the individual extends to just and equitable treatment of all individual Canadians in matters of human rights and social policy. Pensions, unemployment insurance, universal health insurance coverage, and housing are examples of social policies which respond to the needs of individual Canadians. The government, on the other hand, has spouted only rhetoric about its commitment to equitable social policy.
One minister of the Crown has stated that the government will remove the universality inherent in the national pension scheme. Another minister talks about reforming unemployment insurance and, in doing so, he has advocated drastic cuts which would affect expectant mothers, single individuals, and Canadians in economically underdeveloped regions. Still another minister of the Crown has advocated and implemented measures which will give tax credits to home owners while totally and unforgivably forgetting the poor and those who rent. The government's professed commitment to the individual must be qualified. The government is committed only to some things for some Canadians.
Already the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) has redefined the criteria for the Canada Works program to exclude a number of legitimate potential participants in my riding. Under the Liberal government my riding was eligible under the Canada Works program because the labour surplus rate was in excess of 7 per cent. High unemployment was concentrated in small areas of my riding, especially in lower town and Vanier. Today, because of redistribution, several thousand constituents have been added, and my riding became ineligible under the Canada Works program. There are just as many unemployed as there were before. There are just as many unemployed individuals who have not changed except that they have now become statistics. Because of the increased number of people in the riding they have lost

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Gauthier
their importance under the Canada Works program and are not eligible for any more grants.
The government says it is currently undertaking a review of the unemployment insurance program. The government's lack of concern for individuals in this domain has been striking, as if somehow they did not count as unemployed. They have been denied eligibility for unemployment insurance. Unattached individuals will be penalized because they are unattached. It does not seem to matter very much that statistics show that unattached individuals are in fact the very people who are in need of unemployment insurance.
The average family income in Canada last year was $20,101, while the average individual was earning somewhat less than $8,254 annually. Is the government aware of the number of working women between 55 and 65 who would suddenly be ineligible for unemployment insurance? How many of our youth will be told that they might as well move back home because now they are ineligible for unemployment insurance even though they have made determined but unsuccessful efforts to find or create employment for themselves? The government will have to answer all these questions in the months to come.
We welcome the measure mentioned in the Speech from the Throne which commits the government to a review of retirement policies and pensions for the aged. We hope, however, that the government will not introduce new measures which would in any way tamper with the universality of the Canada Pension Plan. Madame Pelletier in my riding of Ottawa-Vani-er should in no way be penalized because she and her departed husband had the foresight to provide for retirement. There will be no justice for Canadians in any such scheme which removes universality.
I would like to speak briefly about the measures the government has announced to allow mortgage interest tax credits for homeowners. While it is to be applauded that some taxpayers are getting a break, the government can only be condemned for its failure to provide similar breaks for other Canadians. The government gives some money to a select few, and pays for it by taking it away from all of us. The vast majority of constituents in my riding are renters. Are they to be penalized because they are too poor, or because they rent, or because they have decided not to own homes? One hon. member on this side pointed out yesterday that since high interest rates have come in with this government, the $1,500 tax credit on mortgage interest has been completely offset by higher mortgage interest. Young Canadians will have no home at all to look to in the future with such contradictory policies.
My point has not been to criticize the government unduly or unfairly. The government speaks consistently of wanting to cater to the individual and to allow the individual to grow and to prosper. I suggest that the abandonment of a social policy designed to provide a respectable standard of living to those who cannot provide for themselves would be an inequitable and unconscionable act.
As Liberal critic on Treasury Board and on personnel matters as they relate to public servants, I would like to

comment now on some of the directions the government has taken. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and his colleagues are trying once again to give the impression to Canadians-and it is the wrong impression-that the rapid growth of the federal public service is something which has got out of control. The fact is that from 1968 to 1978 the federal public service, including Crown corporations, grew at an average yearly rate of 3.1 per cent, in response to demands from a growing economy. In the same period the Canadian economy grew at an average annual rate of 4.4 per cent, after subtracting the effects of inflation. In other words, the federal public service grew less rapidly than the economy.
The Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board are trying to hide from the public the fact that the real growth in bureaucracies has been in provincial and municipal governments. Even before the last election the growth of the federal public service had been reduced to zero. Contrast that with Alberta, where the provincial public service grew on an average by 7.4 per cent a year from 1974 to 1977, and in Saskatchewan by 6 per cent. Municipal bureaucracies in Alberta grew by 5.7 per cent yearly during the same period, and in Saskatchewan they grew by 7.3 per cent. The record, of course, is held by a fellow by the name of Levesque, who sponsored a growth of 13.5 per cent in Quebec's public service in the first year of his administration.
Neither the Prime Minister nor his hatchet man, the President of the Treasury Board, have made it clear yet how reductions in the federal public service can control the growth of these other bureaucracies. Indeed, with their disposition to give away federal responsibilities they may only be adding to these already large bureaucracies. Is this new government trying to make the federal public service pay for the sins of other governments?


Mr. Friesen:: Or the previous government?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: During the recent campaign we were assured that reductions would be made by selling off Crown corporations and by attrition. How will the government avoid lay-offs when it has implemented a blanket cutback of 2 per cent? We are told in press reports that next year it will be 10 per cent, so evidently people will be directly affected, laid off and looking for work.
On the subject of attrition, in recent times Manitoba, which has one of the only governments which has succeeded to some extent in cutting back on public servants, did it, but it maintained-and I think it was right-that it should never use attrition as a way of reducing its public service. The hints and leaks in recent times about major cutbacks in federal programs and personnel suggest that this new government may be preparing to abandon attrition. With 2 per cent cuts, 10 per cent cuts and all kinds of special interest groups, the word 'attrition" will be redefined. It doen't mean attrition any more. Mr. Speaker. They have redefined the word "attrition".
I wouldn't be surprised to hear the President of the Treasury Board get up some day and say, "Well, we've abandoned that policy, just as we have abandoned other things such as lower
October 11, 1979

interest rates, the embassy move, parliamentary secretaries who were not going to be named-what's another promise here or there?"
It has become increasingly clear that the new government has a very low opinion of its own public service. One of the joys of their rigid ideology is that they need not allow facts to stand in the way of their prejudices. Never mind the opinions of well-informed people across the world who think Canada has one of the best public services there is. Public servants in Canada, in my experience, discharge their responsibilities with the greatest of efficiency. 1 must admit, though, that having read the Lambert commission report I accept most of its recommendations, but if the President of the Treasury Board intends to adopt some of the measures proposed by Mr. Lambert, he must put in hand a policy for the development and training of public servants, especially if he continues to go the route of attrition. I say this because an approach through attrition takes for granted that all positions are equal. But that is not the case.
If you let attrition take its course through the years how can you tell any public servant that he will not be relocated urgently to replace, for example, an inspector on the east coast who has retired, or died, or decided to quit? How does the minister account for the lack of a training or development program, a global approach to look after the staffing of positions which become vacant? I cannot see any logic in the policy of attrition if it is continued without some assurance from the minister, some admission that it does not work and, second, an undertaking that he will try to put forward positive measures of training and developing new talents in the public service.
The government has for several months had its hands on the final report of the Lambert commission on financial management and accountability which was recently made public. It is to be hoped the D'Avignon report on staffing will also become available in the near future. These reports, taken together, might well call for a far-reaching change in the way the public service operates. Can we expect some response from the government to these recommendations in the present session? Or perhaps the government feels the management of the public service is not sufficiently important to merit its attention. We shall see, and we shall constantly remind the government of the importance of review and of putting forward good recommendations to make the public service more efficient and a more efficacious organization.
[ Translation]
I should now like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a question which deserves urgent consideration from a government that would like to be responsible and attentive to the actions of individuals who have at heart the major national objectives.
Yesterday in his speech the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) dealt with an important question, namely, that
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Gauthier Canada means much more than ten provinces, five regions and thousands of municipalities. He said and I quote:
The way to build a whole nation is to realize that Canada is more than the sum of its parts; it is more than just ten provincial feudalities which are warring together; it is more than just a piece of geography. Canada exists if there is a national spirit and a national will.
I shall add that that community of individuals which is Canada must also have a common ideal that reflects the aggregate of the values, brings about satisfaction and gives a meaning to the aspirations of the heart and the mind.
Mr. Speaker, this national unity must be achieved in the respect and dignity of the individual. We need enlightened leadership, sensitive to the aspirations of all individuals. What the population needs is strong leadership. The public recognizes that problems exist, but it demands precise indications as to the direction to be taken.
If we read the Speech from the Throne, we find a rather general mention about the various elements constituting our country. I quote:
Confident local identities are emerging-rooted in language, custom and community-and yielding a cultural vitality unique among nations. My ministers believe that the way to build a whole nation is to respect our individual parts, and you will be invited to consider measures to build upon the diverse regional and cultural strengths of Canada.
We may honestly ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, what measures the government will introduce to reach this objective. The laissez-faire attitude of the Prime Minister as concerns linguistic minority groups is certainly more than reason for concern. In a few words, the Prime Minister has often repeated that he would leave to the provinces the full responsibility of rectifying 112 years of indifference and neglect as concerns the development of these communities, whether in the field of education, of health, of justice or of social services. The Prime Minister says, "Let us leave all that to the provinces." Of course, several members on this side of the House must oppose this attitude, and we shall constantly raise the issue of national interest with the Prime Minister to make him understand the importance of the mandate that he has received to speak for all Canadians, wherever they may be and whatever their position. We are all Canadians first, whether our official language is French or English, and our whole nation is based on the fact that most Canadians speak one or the other of these languages. Nearly one million Canadians outside the province of Quebec speak French. There is no need for me to relate the epic battles that have been fought in various provinces, such as in my own province of Ontario, in New Brunswick, in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, and so on. I believe all of the provinces could be included. Apart from Quebec, I believe that their history is rather dark on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, we shall not allow this Progressive Conservative government to ignore the minority groups of one official language, any more than we shall allow it to forget other important minorities, because the fact remains, as we have learned rather painfully in Canada, that when you want to

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Gauthier destroy a minority, you have only to ignore it, because when you ignore a problem, you are hoping that it will disappear. Indeed, this is what has happened in many provinces. The existence of French-speaking Canadians has been ignored and they have been left to be assimilated without any qualms. These minorities have been allowed to survive with difficulty in spite of conditions which were initially well established in 1867: two founding people to be able to develop in a united Canada. This is not the way it happened.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. He would need unanimous consent if he is to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this gesture. I will be as brief as possible.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, we could not opt for an egalitarian approach, a just and equitable approach, without the approval of the Canadian people itself since the strength of the majority must be put to use to help the vulnerable minorities, be it the poor, the handicapped, the linguistic groups, the native or all of them. I think that the majority of Canadians are aware of the present problems and that they will generously give their support to remedy the situation and help these people survive in this great country of ours which has been partly built on this very diversity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks. I still have a lot to say but I will be very brief because I would like to deal with two or three subjects which have to do with federal-provincial relations. However, I will wait another time to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I think it is time for the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) to shed some light on the programs he is considering implementing with respect to the development of minority linguistic communities, and more particularly I would like to hear from the Secretary of State that he is going to renew the federal-provincial agreements having to do with the matter of the support of the federal government in linguistic matters, that is, encouraging the teaching of official languages in the provinces. Yet I insist at least that there be a formal method of reporting so we, Canadians, in every province will know how the provinces are spending the funds the federal government is giving them to encourage them and support their efforts in the field of education.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that federal-provincial relations will really improve only if one day this government can understand the importance for us Canadians
[Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).J
living in a minority situation to have a constitutional amendment enshrining rights and liberties, including linguistic rights.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much of the time of the House but, very simply this is something I am very interested in, and I will come back to it from time to time.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: First, I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the position of Speaker of the House.
Second, I wish to pay tribute to the memory of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, the man who walked alone ahead of all of us, always with his head held high and a hand stretched out to the common man, a man who strolled across the face of this nation with an unfaltering gait and a glint in his eye, the glint of eternity. My loss is that I have not had the opportunity to see him perform in this House.
Third, I wish to thank my constituents for electing me to the highest elective office in this country. Democracy is the most brilliant jewel of an evolving civilization. In the course of just 24 hours it reversed the roles of the "ins" and the "outs" in this House. To the official opposition who, just a few months ago, were the government, I dare to quote the last words of Robert Frost's poem entitled "Reluctance". They read:
Ah, when to the heart of man Was it ever less than a treason To go with the drift of things To yield with a grace to reason And bow and accept the end Of a love or a season.
I get the distinct impression that some people on the other side of the House still think they are in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: I sympathize with all those who have been humbled by democracy. At times I have enjoyed working with them, and indeed I hope to enjoy working with them again.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to say something in regard to the former prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), who is not in his seat now. I will simply say this, that the people of western Canada have judged him very harshly.


An hon. Member:: They were right, too.


William J. Yurko: I am glad the hon. member said that because I am quite certain that history will judge him with greater kindness and greater objectivity, and in my estimation, deservedly so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: To the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) who sits on this side, and to all of us over here, I say: congratulations, we have done well and we should pat ourselves on the back.
October 11, 1979

However, we must remember something, and that is the fallibility of human leadership. We should remember that very well as we wrestle with the swift currents of opinion and the tide of progress. We would be wise to remember that the troika that leads all good governments consists of honesty, husbandry, and humility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: When I resigned from the ministry which 1 enjoyed in the province of Alberta after literally ten years as an MLA in that province, I wrote to the premier saying "I seek a greater challenge," among other things, to bring regional concerns to the national capital. I had tried to come here some ten years earlier, but this was made impossible by a skinny fellow from Edmonton North, at that time called Steve Paproski.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William J. Yurko: He dared to win the nomination, and he has been here ever since.


An hon. Member:: Resign!


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to say something about one's constituency in one's maiden speech in this House, so let me, first of all, thank my constituents for electing me. My riding resembles the United Nations. Literally, it represents people from every major country in the world. It is the seat of the provincial government and of the municipal government of the city of Edmonton. It was the home of the recent Commonwealth games, that magnificent spectacle of human interaction from almost all the Commonwealth countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: It is the home of the new National Hockey League team which is coming to Edmonton and to Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: It is the home of the mighty Eskimos who recently overwhelmed an eastern team, but not to embarrass them, I shall not name them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: It is the home of finance, technology, management and sheer enterprise of every kind. It is the home of some
90,000	Canadians possessed of western dynamism who have repeatedly asked me to bring their message to this House. They repeatedly said to me "Let us build a city, a province, a nation of people from every corner of the earth so compatible and magnificent that all the world shall note and follow our example." They said, "We can do that because we are endowed with such gifts, we are a land so big and so bountiful, a people so diverse and talented, with a history so young, invigorating, and so lacking in paralysing dogma." Indeed, if you find a fifth generation Albertan, you are lucky, like my son, and my grandson who is sixth generation. Repeatedly they
The Address-Mr. Yurko
have said, "Let us be free to determine our future, free from overtaxation and too much government; get the government off our backs".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Also they said, "Let us be united in prosperity, in diversity, and in seeking the future of brotherhood between different cultures, solitudes and races". Amen.


Some hon. Members:: Amen!


William J. Yurko: I do not believe I can relate to the House what they tried to get across to me, what I saw in their eyes. They sent me to this House of conversation.


An hon. Member:: Hallelujah!


William J. Yurko: Hallelujah! I will get to the hon. member a little later. My concern relates as much to the world society as it does to the Canadian one. It has been my distinct privilege to be a member of the Canadian delegation to Stockholm, the population conference in Romania, Habitat, and the conference of northern nations in Japan. Thus I have developed what I hope is a small appreciation of the world. I look upon the world society and I see it adrift. There seem to be no over-all goals, no consistent philosophy, except that some people would make us believe that it is socialism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: There seems to be no inspiration, no over-all meaning, not even any hope. The global society seems apprehensive and confused. It was an experience for all of us to witness on television in the last few days the reaffirmation and the restatement of a few humble absolutes by the Pope, a world figure who came to this continent and excited it like no one else has in the last hundred years.
The courage of our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) in propounding the concepts of fundamental human rights and freedom from war and the ascension of universal democracy recently at the United Nations, was another beam of hope in these turbulent times. I congratulate the minister for her courage in doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: I am a man of the newer technologies, having cut my teeth on neutrons, electrons, and nuclear energy.


An hon. Member:: That explains it.


William J. Yurko: If one could perch oneself above the earth as one can today-


John R. Rodriguez: You are blowing.


William J. Yurko: Some time I will tell the hon. member how much radiation 1 have had in the last while. If one could witness the growth of technology, its application, its use and its

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Yurko
pervasiveness in the interdependency and interrelationship of individuals, groups, communities and nations in the world itself, one would witness in the unfolding situation the revelation of science to a receptive human mind and the growth and spread of technological application which has accelerated to such vast proportions in the last 50 years or so. Technology has produced serious aberrations in man's own concept of himself and his ultimate destiny and purpose. He has begun to see himself as the ultimate master of his own destiny, as I am sure some socialists have over the last 25 years.
The pervasiveness of technology is so vast and so encompassing that governments at local, intermediate and national levels have increasingly done three things: moved to regulate and control technology, moved to tax the benefits of technology, and moved to redistribute the wealth produced by technology. In doing so governments worldwide have increased all forms of secular authority. In doing so governments and their attendant bureaucracies grew in size explosively and almost irrespective of their political philosophies, whether they be democratic, totalitarian, liberal, conservative, or socialistic in character.
A recent analysis shows the growth of governments in the free nations of the world in the 20-year period from 1955 to 1975. I will not run through all of them, but I should like to refer to a few examples. In the Netherlands the government's share of the gross national product in 20 years grew from 31.5 per cent to 54 per cent; in Sweden from 16.5 per cent to 52 per cent in 20 years; in Ireland from 28 per cent to 50 per cent; in the United Kingdom from 32.5 per cent to 45 per cent; in Germany from 30 per cent to 44 per cent; in Italy from 28 per cent to 43 per cent; in France from 33 per cent to 42 per cent; in Canada from 25 per cent to 40 per cent, now over 42 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: What about the United States?


William J. Yurko: In the United States it grew from 26 per cent to 36 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: What about Holland?


William J. Yurko: I gave the figures for Denmark. In Australia it grew from 22 per cent to 32.5 per cent; in Japan from 17.5 per cent to 25 per cent. This growth in the authority of governments over people's lives has been explosive in just two decades. Indeed a whole new climate of social regulation and cohesiveness developed rapidly. The old authorities of family, community, church and human conscience itself have increasingly been traded and transgressed by the authority of the state. It was and it is a relentless process in virtually all democratic countries. The last 25 years have seen the triumph of de facto socialism and a major concentration of authority over people's lives by governments and their attendant bureaucracies.
It is no wonder that a revulsion has set in throughout many nations as a matter of necessity, indeed as a matter of survival. What is now necessary is more production rather than distribution, more frugalness rather than wastefulness, more initia-

tive and incentive rather than doling out the fruits of technology.
Therefore I agree with the trend in Britain and the statements in the Speech from the Throne. I should like to refer to some of them:
The basic purposes of that change will be to enhance the rights, freedoms and opportunities of individual Canadians-
First, my ministers will reduce the burden of government on the economy by better controlling expenditures.
Second, my government will place greater reliance on individual initiative to generate growth and jobs for Canadians. You will receive proposals for regulatory reform, designed to ensure that the certainty and nature of government regulation encourages individual initiative and planning-
Measures will be placed before you to assist small and medium-size enterprises-
Fifth, my government is committed to making Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990.
Basically that will be achieved through the private sector. These wonderful statements lead the nation in a direction which is absolutely vital after 25 years of de facto socialism which has encumbered each and every Canadian in this vast country of ours to the extent of literally 45 per cent of the gross national product being directly controlled and spent by governments of this nation.
This brings me to the topic of energy. Let me say first that recently because of technology and its complexities a number of hybrids have evolved linking the public sector with the private sector. I have been responsible for some of these myself. One of the most encouraging directions was the formation of the Alberta Gas Trunk Line in Alberta which has become an enormous success, an efficient and imaginative private enterprise tinged with just a bit of government. Indeed, the Alberta Energy Company is an example of the tying together of private enterprise with a bit of government. It is enormously successful and 1 do not doubt that a few members in this House have a few shares in that company, shares which have gone up quickly from $10 to $40. Indeed, the British Columbia Resources Corporation is another example. There are many examples which have evolved as a result of the power given to a few people through technology. That is what the multinational oil corporations have, a vast pool of technology that gives them access to capital in unlimited proportions enabling them to go anywhere and increase their riches.
Let me say this about Petro-Canada, Mr. Speaker. Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation does not need to be engaged in the operation of service stations, in marketing, in refining, or in LPG plants. Indeed, it does not need to be involved in some of the transportation systems. Petro-Canada can be converted to an instrument of national cohesiveness for the assurance of self-sufficiency in energy in partnership with existing oil companies in Canada, or in partnership, for example, with the provinces, or even through partnership with Canadians, as has been the case with the Alberta Energy Company.
There are a variety of ways that Petro-Canada can be adjusted and tailored to become far more effective in assuring

self-sufficiency in energy down the way than in the manner in which it is structured today. I have had a lot of experience with Crown corporations provincial in scope, and they are not the most responsive type of vehicle for creating wealth.
The industrial world has built a vast productive machine almost totally dependent on what used to be $2 or $1.85 a barrel oil. This made the OPEC cartel not only possible but powerful. That cartel raised world oil prices ten to 12-fold in just six years, and thereby placed in motion an effective system of world wealth redistribution and financial power reallocation. A similar phenomenon is occurring within Canada itself.
Each industrial nation was faced with converting its industrial base from low-cost energy to high-cost energy. During the transition period each nation had to act quickly, and 1 pity the nation that did not or does not move as fast as it should at the earliest opportunity.
Each nation had three choices in adjusting its economy. The first choice was to do nothing and become poorer, with the people of the nation becoming poorer primarily through inflation, which is nothing more than that process which makes all of us poorer whether we like it or not.
The second choice was to live on debt. They could borrow and borrow and borrow, which the United States and Canada have done, to the extent that we have mortgaged our future with the inflation rate now causing considerable hardship in these nations.
The third choice was to produce more. We could produce more, become more competitive in the world economy, competing with some of those nations that are far more productive.
What this government is trying to do is follow that third approach. It is not following the second approach because we have exhausted our ability to live on debt. This nation has mortgaged its future to the extent that the foreign debt, I believe, is no less than $5,000 per capita.
Inflation is no mystery. The United States delayed its inflationary rate by not becoming poorer for a while and now they are suffering a 14 per cent inflation rate. Canada accepted the brunt a few years ago and now suffers a lesser rate of inflation. As I said, inflation is nothing more than a process for making us all poorer. We have been living beyond our means. The resistance to becoming poorer results in a vicious process of government versus government, community versus community, union versus government and management, corporate entity versus corporate entity, and man versus man. The weak suffer the most. Unemployment relegates many to the redundancy heap, and it is perhaps the most vicious way of making people poorer; the aged on fixed incomes, the sick, the weak, those with the least wealth, power and authority; they are the ones who suffer the most. This is the Canadian situation created by the previous government and inherited by the present government. It is not a rosy situation. It is a most difficult situation, Mr. Speaker.
World oil prices will rise. I spent three days in Washington, and every official I talked with there indicated to me the vulnerability of Mid-East oil. Indeed, some pretty serious
The Address-Mr. Yurko
projections of the instability in that part of the world were made behind closed doors. World oil prices will rise to between $30 and $50 per barrel before substitutes for conventional oil become economically feasibile.
The United States has little choice. It has to become involved with substitutes through liquification and gasification of coal, and that nation has something like 24 per cent to 30 per cent of the world's coal reserves. There is that potential there, but what the United States will have to do is convert the entire society which was built on $2 per barrel oil to $30 per barrel oil. This will cause a major upheaval in the United States and I can assure all members in this House that the effects will be felt in this nation in a serious way.
The incentives, indeed the requirements for moving this country toward oil self-sufficiency are therefore paramount. Indeed, it is imperative to reduce our imports. The price of petroleum must rise. Oil pricing is now established by the forces of supply and demand in the world. There is a much greater demand than the present supply can meet. The Iranian situation has proved that. Saudi Arabia has cut back a million barrels a day. This winter will give us another example of the supply not meeting the demand.
Oil is a peculiar commodity. It is very difficult to place a value on it. It was produced by nature over a billion years. Man came along in the last 100 years, dug a hole and took it out of the ground and said it was worth $1.85 a barrel. Who is to say that is right? This is one of the most vitally important commodities the world has ever known. What is its value? Does man produce it? He can produce it from coal and from biomass which indirectly is solar energy, and the costs are in the area of the equivalent of $30 to $50 a barrel. The appetite for oil is insatiable. In the United States alone the consumption tripled in a mere 25 years.
Earlier this year I wrote out the four points of what I thought to be a national energy strategy. Let me just read them for you. The first is security of energy supply to all parts of Canada with the potential for no less than 50 per cent of total energy needs for any region from Canadian sources. The second is Canadian energy self-sufficiency, that is, zero net oil imports, because the nation is self-sufficient in energy today. It is not self-sufficient in oil. It is oil that we import, because we are self-sufficient in energy-self-sufficiency within a maximum period of 15 years or by 1990 if possible from diversified energy sources. Three is a Canadian deliverability of oil and gas to all regions of Canada; oil or gas. Four, maintaining a healthy, competitive and expanding primary and secondary manufacturing industry in Canada through appropriate energy pricing policies. However, it should not be to the extent that productivity decreases and the competitive spirit is killed. There should be a small advantage to Canadian manufacturing, but only a small one to make it efficient and productive, because that is the key behind the revival of the economy.
I also laid out six points forming a national energy plan. In it I included the fact that we need a major thrust in energy

October 11, 1979
The Address-Mr. Evans
conservation through price adjustments and waste use elimination, major new initiatives in increasing conventional energy reserves and supply capabilities including oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, coal, oil sands, heavy oils, enhanced recovery and others.
The third point in my national energy plan was substantive extension of Canada's energy deliverability to and within all regions of Canada; fourth was a program of extensive energy supply and use redeployment on a regional, and use-cost basis. My fifth point was an accelerated program of research, development and the construction of demonstration facilities of new energy forms like gasahol, solar, tidal, wind, biomass and so forth. Finally, my sixth point was a total review and reassessment of present and possible future Canada-U.S. energy intertwinement arrangements. The question which must always be asked is are they always in the Canadian interest?
1 do not know how much time I have left. 1 believe it is very little, but I had hoped to have something to say about the province of Alberta. What does the province of Alberta want? It wants its rights under the constitution. Under those rights it wants to build and to be a dynamic and vibrant part of Canada. It has opened its borders to young men and young women from all across the nation to come and find employment, opportunity, and a future.
In the United States capital and labour move across the face of the land almost unimpeded. In our nation we have a formula process which I support, but it can get out of hand. It is a process called equalization where people are literally forced through economic handouts to stay where they are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, and due to the fact that there will be a vote in four minutes and the fact that another member wishes to participate, I regret that I cannot give the hon. member an extension of time.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, given the lateness of the hour and the importance of the issue we will decide at 9.45, I would like to take an extract from my speech which deals with the important amendment to the address from the House to His Excellency, that deals with Petro-Canada. I strongly support the amendment which was moved yesterday by my leader. However, with regard to the amendment to the amendment which was introduced thereto, I have strong reservations.
The issue raised in the subamendment was already dealt with by the House on March 20, 1979, and was soundly rejected by a vote of 190 to 13. As the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) said this afternoon, "We have no objections to the retail aspect. The power is currently in the act that governs Petro-Canada but with regard to the importer aspect, we have several problems."
First of all why should we put all our eggs in one basket? Canada's energy flexibility would be greatly reduced as a result. Secondly, we have many existing contracts which would undoubtedly have to be renegotiated, and ultimately at much

higher prices for Canadians. Finally, we now have a system which works for Canada, and to alter this system radically would jeopardize rather than enhance Canadian energy security. For these reasons I do not intend to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent).
If I could, I would now like to start my prepared text. At the outset I would like to add my name to those who have congratulated the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) on the manner in which they moved and seconded the reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I would like to preface my remarks by stating my sincere appreciation to the people of Ottawa Centre for the confidence they demonstrated in me on May 22. Ottawa Centre is indeed a unique riding, and I am honoured to represent its electors. The Parliament Buildings are located within its boundaries, thereby creating a federal presence known nowhere else in Canada. There is another dimension which I believe is characteristic of few other ridings. Ottawa Centre is to me a microcosm of the country itself. It has a wide range of cultural, social, economic, and political groups, making it a true reflection of the the vertical mosaic which is Canada, a mosaic in which each individual contributes in his or her own unique way to the strength and vitality of Canadian society.
The people of Ottawa Centre also represent a group of Canadians who, I believe, are better informed than their peers on matters of public policy and their implication. They feel the intimate presence of the four levels of government and have demonstrated their ability to voice reasoned opinions on the issues of the day. However, while the pervasive federal presence has certain advantages for Ottawans, there are also very real disadvantages.
The advantages are of course the many amenities which accompany the physical location of the seat of government. The Parliament Buildings, the National Arts Centre, the Museum of Man, the canal, the National Art Gallery, the Supreme Court, the National Library, the Garden of the Provinces, the Postal Museum, and the Bank of Canada are all located in the riding of Ottawa Centre and are a source of pride and enjoyment to the people of Ottawa Centre and, indeed, to all Canadians who take the opportunity to visit our beautiful city. May I call it 9.45, Mr. Speaker?
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 38(3) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment that is now before the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment in the name of Mr. Broadbent. All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
October 11, 1979

The Address-Mr. Evans


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment to the amendment is defeated.
It being ten o'clock the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 10.22 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

October 11, 1979


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Adjustments of Accounts Act
Amendments to the Adult Occupational Training Act Legislation respecting Aerial Hijacking Amendments to the Aeronautics Act Amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act Bankruptcy Act
Banks and Banking Law Revision Act, 1979
Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Canada Beef Import Act
Amendments to the Canada Elections Act
Legislation to repeal the Canada-France Trade Agreement
Amendments to the Canada Labour Code
Canada Non-Profit Corporations Act
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada Ports Act
Amendments to the Canada Shipping Act Legislation Establishing the Canadian Agripro Corporation Amendments to the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act
Amendments to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
Amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Amendments to the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act
Amendments to the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act
Amendments to the Criminal Code Legislation respecting Crown Corporations Customs Act
Amendments to the Customs Tariff Amendments to the Department of Labour Act Amendments to the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act
Legislation to revise the Electricity Inspection Act and the Gas Inspection Act
Legislation amending the Employment Tax Credit program
Essential Services Disputes Act
Amendments to the Excise Tax Act
Amendments to the Farm Credit Act
Amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act
Amendments to the Federal Business Development Bank Act
Legislation respecting Fiscal Transfers to the Provinces
Amendments to the Fisheries Act
Amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
Legislation repealing Four Agriculture Statutes
Freedom of Information Act
Fugitive Offenders Act
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act Amendments to the Income Tax Act
Amendments to the Income Tax Act respecting Mortgage Interest and Property Tax Relief Legislation respecting Income Tax Conventions Amendments to the Immigration Act Independence of Parliament Act Amendments to the Indian Act Labour Information Bureau Act Amendments to the Livestock Feed Assistance Act Amendments to the Judges Act Amendments to the Land Titles Act Amendments to the Loan Companies Act Amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act Migratory Caribou Convention Legislation Proposals for a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act Municipal Grants Act
Legislation to implement the Multilateral Trade Negotiations Tariff Changes
Legislation to implement the Non-Tariff Multilateral Trade Negotiations Agreements Amendments to the Old Age Security Act Omnibus Environmental Amendment legislation Legislation to revise the Patent Act Amendments to the Pension Act Amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act Plant Breeders' Rights Act
Legislation to convert the Post Office into a Crown corporation
An Act respecting certain postal rates Legislation respecting the Privacy of Individuals Legislation respecting Public Service Pensions Legislation respecting Quebec and Montreal Port Wardens Amendments to the Radiation Emitting Devices Act Consolidation of Regional Development legislation Legislation respecting the Relocation of Federal Agency Head Offices
October 11, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
Safe Containers Convention Act
Amendments to the Saltfish Act
Amendments to the Seeds Act
Legislation respecting Sexual Offences
Amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act
Sunset legislation
Legislation to revise the Trade Marks Act
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act Telecommunications Act Amendments to the Trust Companies Act Amendments to the Two-Price Wheat Act Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act Amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act Legislation respecting Young Offenders Amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 12, 1979