1979-10-10

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the fact that the record increase in interest rates carried out yesterday by the Bank of Canada, apparently with the agreement of the government, will have adverse effects on employment, business, especially small business, and consumers as well as the economy generally, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien):
That this House immediately order its Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to be set up and that that committee undertake an immediate review of the interest rate policy of this government and of the Bank of Canada, and that for this purpose the governor of the bank and the Minister of Finance appear before it to explain their actions and what they will be doing to solve the problems which the governor of the bank himself said interest rates are now causing for individuals and to business.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Hon. members know that motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be put to the House only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43, and I trust the precedent established by the government will be followed.
In view of the recent Davis decision in Ontario refusing the establishment of a French language school in Penetanguishene, noting the impact that that decision is bound to have on both linguistic groups in Quebec in the face of the debate leading up to the Quebec referendum, and since this House, recognizing the historical importance of minority language rights to the viability of this nation, has voted moneys for the provinces to foster second language education, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston):
That this House urge the Ontario government to reconsider and reverse its decision to refuse a French language secondary school for the population of Penetanguishene.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
On October 3, 1977, the then minister responsible for the federal government decentralization program announced that a combined 378 full-time jobs plus 56 part-time jobs would be placed in the very high unemployment area of Sydney. The cabinet of the new government rescinded this healthy idea. In view of the fact this decision for Cape Breton shows tremendous insensitivity to diversifying a very narrow employment base, and in view of the fact that I fought long and hard for such action, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):

October 10, 1979
That this government be denounced for turning its back on a very high unemployment area by the punishing decision not to relocate these jobs to the Sydney area.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have some misgivings about the rather parochial nature of the motion, but nevertheless on this day 1 opt in favour of the hon. member. 1 may not be as generous in later sessions. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It can be presented to the House for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Stormont-Dundas: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact there has been a grain handlers' strike in the port of Montreal for over four months, which seriously affects not only farmers and consumers in the province of Quebec but also the grain producers in western Canada, and considering the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) personally intervened in the grain handlers' strike on the west coast within a few days after assuming office, I move seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre):
That the Minister of Transport and/or the Minister of Labour intercede directly and immediately in the port of Montreal negotiations, bringing the two sides together in an effort to reach a positive solution.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Jeanne Same (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the decision of the Minister of Communications (Mr. MacDonald) to abolish the committee on sexist stereotypes in the media and on his decision to integrate it in a far less representative way in a study group of the CRTC. Far from me the idea of objecting if the CRTC

is asked to consider the urgency of such a problem, but I am concerned that the minister has deemed it advisable to entrust the CRTC with the task of passing some value judgments under the circumstances. Standards alone could be considered, but when he announced the creation of the study group the minister suggested that it could look at the opportunity of legislating to bring an end to the exploitation of women on television.
I therefore move, seconded by the member for Westmor-land-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That an independent committee to set up to make the people sensitive to abuses in the representation of the role of women on television and that the CRTC and the government refrain from any censure procedure to solve that urgent problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. The presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the government's welcomed initiatives concerning freedom of information providing greater public access to government information, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instructs the government to table in Parliament the patronage book of appointments put together by the Prime Minister's special assistant, Mrs. Jean Pigott.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF THE BUNDESRAT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the question period, may I ask hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor in the person of Dietrich Stobbe, President of the Bundesrat of the Federal Republic of Germany.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 10, 1979



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Mr. Clark:: Mr. Speaker, we would prefer to have an energy agreement in place before the budget. However, if that is not possible in the matter of weeks, it is entirely likely that a budget will be brought down before the first ministers meet in early December, and consequently before there is a new agreement on energy.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to make Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990, a goal that we find commendable.
We intend to co-operate in some of the measures in respect of consumption and the reduction of consumption indicated in the Speech from the Throne. However, in the more immediate future, can the Prime Minister tell us if any arrangements have been made in terms of pricing petroleum in Canada? We know that the Prime Minister has had meetings with various premiers, and for the purpose of planning we would like to know if there are any announcements to be made in the near future.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have carried on extensive conversations with all the premiers with an eye to the development of a general energy package, and they naturally included conversations regarding price. There is not at this moment any agreement which I can reveal to the House, and I have no expectation of making an announcement of such an agreement in the next few days.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that this is a particularly difficult task since we ourselves in the past have had to seek pricing agreements in Canada and it was not always possible to get the agreement of every province. Therefore, I would not want to press the Prime Minister for an immediate answer. Can he let the country know if it is likely that the agreement put together by our government last winter, which was to be operative till July 1 next, will be left in place, or will some new agreement be brought in before July 1?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is another matter that is under consideration in the discussions we are having with the provinces. I would hope that if there is to be a change in the agreement that is now in place, or if there is to be a new agreement based upon the agreement initiated by the former government, that will be announced before the first ministers' meeting in early December.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister mentions early December. We have been given to understand that there would be a budget in the course of the first part of the session. Should one assume that the oil pricing agreement will be reached before the budget is brought down, or will the hon. Minister of Finance be basing his budget predictions and concluding the very important import compensation funds on the agreement which was brought forth by the Liberal government last winter?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Given the government's approval yesterday of a third hike in interest rates over the summer period, could the Prime Minister explain to the House how his government's interest rate policy differs from the policy of the preceding government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the degree to which interest rate increases in Canada have followed those in the United States has slackened since the election on May 22. We are dealing with a very, very difficult situation here, as the hon. member knows. That is why members of my party were so pleased to be able to accept the recommendation made by the economic spokesman of the official opposition to have the question of interest rates referred as quickly as possible-we would hope, this week or early next week-to the relevant standing committee where there can be not only an opportunity for the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance to express their views, but also an opportunity for other members of this House and members of the public to express their views as to the appropriate policy for a country in our circumstances at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that no such committee has been formed as yet and that this matter is of profound importance in terms of its impact on the people of Canada. Just prior to the election the Prime Minister, in his role as Leader of the Opposition, stated:
-there is nothing less sensible than the government's determination to increase interest rates to record levels. That idea . .. has led to the most expensive monetary policy in this country's history.
I would agree entirely with those sentiments. I have not changed my mind.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what has changed in the country, in the interim, if high interest rates were so disadvantageous to consumers, to people who wish to buy a mortgage, and to virtually everybody in the country, before the election but now that the election has taken place they are no longer disadvantageous?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, high interest rates are welcomed by no one. They are no more welcome or, indeed, satisfactory to this government now than they were to us prior to May 22. We do live in an international circumstance which limits the flexibility of the Government of Canada.

October 10, 1979
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: This government has demonstrated a greater independence from the rate of increase in the United States than was the case prior to the last election. We do believe, and I repeat it to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that it would be useful for all aspects of this question to be reviewed by a standing committee of the House of Commons. The Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that the striking committee will be meeting tomorrow. We expect it will be possible for that committee to be struck before the end of this week. We would certainly be prepared to have that reference go as quickly as possible to that committee.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the present Prime Minister was leader of the opposition, he used to castigate the Liberals for passing off serious problems to committees. I suggest he should practice now what he was preaching then.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that his loquacious colleague from Newfoundland, the Minister of Finance, said-and he is quoted in today's papers-that "interest rate increases no longer seem to have the effect"-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, the hon. member is engaging in a preamble that I think is lengthy in terms of his third question. Will he please put a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will come right to the point. Since the Minister of Finance said this policy is now disastrous-he admitted it yesterday-will the Prime Minister now implement a policy in accord with what he was preaching before he formed the government, namely, reduce interest rates instead of boosting them?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party will know, we have already this day implemented one of the major undertakings we made in the election campaign, which was to accord much greater respect to the committees of this House so that we can draw upon the advice of all members of this House and, indeed, of the public, in dealing with very complex problems.
The members of the New Democratic Party will have the same opportunity as members of other parties in this House to contribute in a practical way to solutions to the dilemma that faces Canada. We look forward to receiving in that committee and in other forums the specific proposals that members of that party may well have, as the committee will receive specific proposals and testimony by the Minister of Finance.


POSITION OF CHAIRMAN OF TASK FORCE ON PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with respect to Petro-Canada. Can the minister confirm that the chairman of the task force on Petro-Canada, Mr. Don McDougall, although on leave as president of Labatt's is still receiving full salary from that company, and that that company is owned by Brascan which has indicated an interest in buying Petro-Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Already?


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the facts with respect to the income received by the chairman of the task force, but I can tell the hon. member that I am not aware of any interest formally expressed with respect to the acquisition of PetroCan by the company referred to by the hon. member.


Gary Francis McCauley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we count on an investigation and some answers to that question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will be glad to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


OIL-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON PRICING
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask him if it is true that, regardless of any agreements between the federal government and the provinces, the federal government favours a price increase of $5 to $6 a barrel in the price of oil in 1980, which would cost the average consumer perhaps $ 100 more per year to drive his car and $120 more per year to heat his house.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has indicated exactly the status of the negotiations. We have been on record with respect to the question of an increase that we think is necessary in the price of oil, but the matter of the precise extent-


An hon. Member:: What do you think?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am trying to explain this to the hon. member, who has lots to learn about energy policy.


An hon. Member:: Arrogant.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to tell this House that we are in the process of deep consultation with the provinces, a practice that the hon. member for Outremont, in his former capacity as federal-provincial minister, will recall is very essential. We
October 10, 1979

intend to pursue those consultations, which are of a very serious nature, to a very serious extent.


Arthur Phillips: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was really asking if the minister had these plans for 1980, and has his department, for example, examined the regional impact of any such substantial increase in the price of oil?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that we are not putting forward that particular price increase regime. The answer to the second part is yes.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who a little while ago announced he would release by the end of September an inspirational and dramatic energy blueprint for the 1980s, to quote his words. We are in October, and there is no sign of that blueprint.
My question to the minister is: Are we to believe press reports to the effect that no blueprint is in sight, and that inspiration and drama have gone the same way as so many other Tory promises, that is to say, in those famous trashcans to which the late Right Hon. member for Prince Albert used to refer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I intend to work as hard as possible in order to make progress with respect to our objective of energy self-sufficiency. I do not take the task lightly.


Mr. Chretien:: Ready for 1990?


PRICE OF OIL-REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO ASSIST INDUSTRY AND PRODUCERS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the reports that the government wants to increase domestic oil prices by $4 to $6 a barrel by the end of next year, and that such a move would result in 2 per cent to 4 per cent additional inflation, another 100,000 unemployed and about 1 per cent less economic growth, at a time when the economy is already not healthy, will the Prime Minister postpone such an increase, review the whole matter and ensure that proper compensatory measures to assist industry and consumers are put in place first before saddling the nation with the double-digit inflation that these prices will bring?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, naturally, any part of any energy package that we negotiate with the provinces will include measures to deal with the serious impact that energy price increases might have, particularly in some parts of the country with lower income Canadians. It is clearly part of the policy and determination of this government that we will not continue with policies that will
Oral Questions
leave the people of Canada exposed to a situation where we are forced forever to rely upon unstable foreign sources of oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I would take it that we are blindly pursuing a path of escalating prices and economic disaster without proper measures.
Since resolving the energy price question first before any budget is imperative, surely if the budget is to have any meaning in terms of these aids to industry and consumers that the Prime Minister is so concerned about, and in view of the most recent rebuff the Prime Minister had from the Premier of Alberta concerning energy price increases, is he prepared to act unilaterally to implement a new domestic oil price prior to the November budget?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, certainly not prior to the November budget. The hon. member will know that there is more to budgets than energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS OF CROWN CORPORATIONS TO PRO-CANADA
Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In the Speech from the Throne, it was announced yesterday:
To make federalism work, it is essential to change the attitudes of the past-
More specifically, again I quote:
-and the federal government must set the example. Accordingly, it is a primary goal of my government to bring about a new era in federal-provincial relations.
We were advised throughout the year that big Crown corporations made generous contributions to Pro-Canada with the blessing of the former government. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if that attitude will be maintained or whether the government intends to alter it.


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: We can see he will think about it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had to check with my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services. Indeed 1 do so not merely with regard to policies, but also concerning the French vocabulary.
Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of reconsidering the practice followed by the former government with regard to the matter the hon. member has brought up.


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister also aware that a number of Crown corporations, of which Canadian National and the Canadian Development Corporation are

October 10, 1979
Oral Questions
two, are directly involved in the committee that canvasses for donations? Is he aware of that, and does he intend to announce, in coming days, his decision to put an end to the political game, 1 repeat, the political game of partisanship which seems to inspire the Crown corporations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is why we are now reviewing the arrangement.


ALLEGED GOUGING OF PUBLIC BY OIL MULTINATIONALS
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the very questionable pricing practices and the literal gouging, to the tune of more than $100 million, of Nova Scotia citizens by Imperial Oil, an Exxon affiliate, as evidenced by a civil trial in Halifax and reported recently by the New York Times, can the minister tell us if he intends to launch a full investigation of the pricing practices of oil multinationals, particularly Imperial Oil, and if not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the question of profits of multinationals and other oil companies, for that matter, is under constant review and surveillance by the department. If the hon. member has any specific information on which to substantiate the allegations which he has made, I would be glad to receive them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Read the papers.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not recognize that the existence of a national oil company like Petro-Canada, belonging to all Canadians, would prevent the spread of such practices and would keep the Canadian government and those large multinationals honest in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure when the hon. member re-examines his question he will recognize an argumentative tone in it.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. If there was any uncertainty as to the system of safeguards that the previous government had offered the government of Argentina-as seemed to be said by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce sitting in the other place, and I could quote him on that subject-why did the Minister of International Trade wait four months before going to Argentina to rectify that possible discrepancy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the question of safeguards was clearly understood by the Argentine government in this recent negotiation. They were precisely the same safeguards as were applied by the former government, and it was made quite clear to them that these safeguards would apply in the contract under negotiation; there is no doubt about that.
As far as any delay by myself going to Argentina, there were a number of matters under review. These were taken into account in the process of reaching a decision to support it, and we went to Argentina as soon as those matters were complete.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the safeguards offered by the previous government are not the cause, in any way, shape or form, of the sale not being made in Argentina.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the discussions I had with people in Argentina, as well as has been made clear in the report of the nuclear agency of Argentina, the factor of safeguards was a matter in the decision they reached recently on the Candu reactor sale.
The matter was made quite clear. Those, together with the fact that balance of the existing contract does run into some problems that have taken place over the last four or five years, were the two factors that led to the Argentine government taking the decision to develop alternative technology in Germany to provide a second source of supply for this important contract.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the order in council passed by the former government just prior to leaving office, prohibiting the McDonald commission from examining minutes of the cabinet or cabinet committees during the ministry of the right hon. member for Mount Royal unless he gives permission to do so.
Will the Prime Minister and the government give serious consideration to amending, repealing or replacing this order in council and any other similar orders in council which would permit complete examination on all matters concerning the RCMP, particularly in the field of national security, by the McDonald commission and the Government of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of repealing that particular order in council. It was an order in council which, by my understanding, was perfectly in accord with precedents established previously rela-
October 10, 1979

tive to documents that had been in the possession of the government replaced at the polls.
There is an arrangement in place, as has been the case for some time now, in the event of a change of government where a senior official of the Public Service of Canada is custodian of documents and will refer back to the Prime Minister and the senior ministers of the former government with regard to the release of any such documents. I, personally, am satisfied that the former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, will not act in any way as to deny access to the McDonald royal commission of documents to which that royal commission should have access.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to that asked by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. During the prolonged period pending the recall of Parliament, Canadians have been witnessing the potential loss of our exports. Mention was made of the loss of the Candu reactor sale to Argentina.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade: it is with reference to the $2.8 billion loss which has been estimated as a result of the loss of the Argentina and Japan sales and the 75,000 jobs that have been affected. What specific measures is the minister of state contemplating in order to assist an industry which is now recognized as being in the doldrums and may well in the future need additional financial assistance from this government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to correct the hon. member. The $2.8 billion figure is somewhat inaccurate. The total amount of exports at stake here as far as Canada is concerned was about $800 million. The balance was local costs in Argentina.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I are taking the opportunity to assess the situation with regard to the loss of this contract, in order to decide where we go from here to develop new markets for what we believe is a very important Canadian resource, the Candu reactor system.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. gentleman's reply I call to the attention of the House the fact that on May 4 of this year the former government entered into an arrangement, which was initialed, with the state of Mexico. Article 3 of that agreement provides for nuclear co-operation. It was envisaged that a potential Candu sale might be effected as a result.
Can the minister explain why, after five months, especially in view of the Argentina sale loss, AECL, which has been identified as our consultant pursuant to that agreement, has not received any instructions from this government to attend
Oral Questions
upon Mexico in order to comply with the terms of the agreement? Indeed, there has not been any approach by the minister or the government toward Mexico relating to implementing the terms of that agreement, much to our loss.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of countries that are potential markets for AECL and for the sale of a Candu reactor. One of them is Mexico. That will be one of the potential markets we will be discussing to see where we go from here. A great deal of time was taken this summer in approaching the Argentine market. That will now be behind us. We can look from here to Mexico and about five other countries which are very good potential markets.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-Port-Au-Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration why, in view of the fact that his party opposed Bill C-14 last November-and opposed it quite strongly, 1 might add-he promulgated the regulations under that act making regressive changes in unemployment insurance, affecting many thousands of Canadians, including 62,000 Newfoundlanders, and taking some $34 million out of the Newfoundland economy this year.


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the changes made as a result of Bill C-14 were a product of a previous Parliament. It fell on the governor in council in the early days of the new government to consider those changes, those that had not yet been implemented, and to proclaim them. The amendments were proclaimed to honour the legitimacy of the previous Parliament in its decision-making process. 1 can say to the hon. member, and he will have a full opportunity to participate in the debate perhaps later this year or early next year, that a full-scale review of unemployment insurance, including some of those changes, has now been set in motion, in fact four days after the new government took office.
That review will include a variety of subjects, including those that were the subject of debate in this chamber in the last Parliament. I am hopeful that that review, which involves extensive consultations with the provinces, labour, business, women's groups and other interested parties, will be brought to a conclusion toward the end of this year. A new bill, hopefully, will be introduced in the spring. The hon. member, along with all members of the House, will have full opportunity to make known his views on this important subject.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the minister that he is now in the government and has the option of changing regulations such as these.
Further to what the minister mentioned about the review procedure that is taking place, can he explain why, in the

October 10, 1979
Oral Questions
proposals contained in that review, there were many proposals to cut off from entitlement to unemployment insurance seasonal fishermen and other seasonal workers in places such as the Atlantic region, without at the same time in any way providing any discussion on alternatives? 1 think this is very important. Can he explain why this was done without discussing the alternatives?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the subjects of review are many. They include seasonal workers and about ten other items. There is no intention of conducting a review simply to cut off any individual group of employees in Canada. As was indicated in the throne speech yesterday, the intention of the review of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to provide greater equity and to remove disincentives to work. That is the framework, and it includes many alternatives which I will be pleased to debate with the hon. member at the appropriate time.


GRANTS TO UNIVERSITY ATHLETES
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. I should like to take the opportunity to express my wish that he keep as Fit as his predecessor.

Mr. Speaker, the minister announced a few weeks ago that universities in the maritimes and western provinces would see travel grants for their athletes competing in Canada during the academic year 1979-80 substantially reduced, from $450,000 to $190,000. The $450,000 was an amount previously agreed upon between the universities concerned and his department.
Could the minister inform the House whether he is ready to reconsider this drastic cut with the two university associations concerned, since their athletic program for the academic year was designed with the understanding that the federal government would give the amount already agreed upon?


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I do not think I will ever possess the same form as the previous minister.
The Canadian Interuniversity fiscal Union received $456,000 in the fiscal year 1978-79. That was not to be a perpetual grant. It was something which was looked at, and it was to be a once-around type of grant. We discussed it with the university directors. I decided to cut down. Hon. members are aware of the restraint program: let us call it belt-tightening.


An hon. Member:: Whose?


Steve Eugene Paproski: We did cut it down to $190,000 after a considerable amount of discussion with some of the local athletic directors both from the Atlantic provinces and from the west. We decided to give them an extra $100,000, which brings it to $290,000.


OIL PRODUCTS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SOLVE SUPPLY PROBLEMS OF INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Charlesbourg):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We recall the fragile situation of the independent distributors of oil products in Quebec and we also know that the minister met the independent distributors of oil products in September. I should like to know, what are, precisely, the measures he intends to take to solve the problem of supply faced by the independent distributors of oil products, with a view to preventing bankruptcy of those independent distributors and ensuring that consumers in Quebec will have heating oil next winter.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in saying that there has been considerable pressure over a period of some months and over the course of the last few years with respect to the independents of Canada.
As soon as I took over this responsibility, I directed my attention to this particular, serious matter. In fact, in August of this year I wrote to all the refiners and terminal operators asking them to observe certain rules with respect to supply for independents not only in the province of Quebec but in what we might generally term eastern Canada. That particular telex asked them not to alter substantially their trade class mix, to continue to supply customers of record and not arbitrarily deny contract renewal.
On the other hand, the hon. member will appreciate the fact that the federal government cannot give ironclad guarantees that all independents will be able to stay in business. We are trying to encourage independents to enter into long-term or extended contracts so that they may, in fact, be able to be assured of supply during the course of next winter and subsequently.


PROPOSED ADOPTION OF LEGISLATION CONCERNING OIL REFINERS AND DISTRIBUTORS
Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the requests for the supply of heating oil which were made by the minister to the big companies were fruitless.
I should like to know whether the minister would be prepared
October 10, 1979

to introduce a bill in the House which would force refiners to sign contracts with all independent distributors in which they would indicate a certain supply, and at the same time would guarantee a certain price at the refinery for all the independent distributors, a price which would be competitive with the price offered to their own distributors.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my department is keeping a very close watch on progress with respect to this matter. We have taken steps with respect to allocation of additional supplies and additional flexibility in the interprovincial pipeline. We have been successful in arranging for some additional supplies because of the increased capacity which will be available.
I want the hon. member to know I am seriously concerned about this matter and I am going to do all I can to get us through the next few months. Unfortunately, I inherited this problem when I took over this portfolio.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and it is to the Solicitor General.
I wonder if the Solicitor General has had an opportunity to discuss with the chairman of the McDonald commission when we might expect an interim report of this ongoing commission.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 have had the opportunity of a couple of occasions to speak to Mr. Justice McDonald. To be frank about it, there have been more answers than one. The answers I have received have not been entirely clarified. The problem simply is that the McDonald commission construes its terms of reference and mandate as being rather ongoing.
1 hope to have a further conversation about this with the chairman of the commission as soon as possible-as a matter of fact, hopefully within the next seven days-and 1 will be very glad to report to the hon. member and perhaps to the members of this House at that time as a result of that discussion.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. 1 want to ask him how the government could present a throne speech yesterday indicating its commitment is to growth, confidence and jobs, while on the very same day it permitted interest rate increases
Oral Questions
by the Bank of Canada which even business spokesmen say weaken growth and confidence and hurt employment.
Does this contradiction not show that the new government does not know where it is going, especially since the governor of the Bank himself admitted that current interest rates are causing problems for individuals and for business? I want the minister to tell us now, because he has an obligation to answer in the House of Commons, what the new government is doing to solve these problems the minister has allowed to arise for individual workers and for business in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the difference between our policy and that of the government of the hon. gentleman is that we have not slavishly followed U.S. interest rates. Quite frankly, hon. gentlemen opposite left us with a deficit this year of at least $7 billion, which is the present forecast, and that does not leave us much room to manoeuvre. There is a budgetary deficit of $11 billion. Despite these factors, we believe our policies in the longer term will get this country working again.


STEPS TO REDUCE INFLATION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Can he explain to the House why he has discarded the policy enunciated by his Prime Minister during the campaign, that after the election, if he was elected, he would not rely any more on monetary policy but solve the problem of inflation through fiscal and budgetary policies?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our position is exactly that. It is not only monetary policy but also our fiscal and budgetary policies and our stopping the scandalous expansion of expenditures and the huge deficits of the hon. gentleman which will bring about a solution in the next year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain to the House why last March he and his colleagues were calling for a budget, why so far they have not been able to find any new policy better than mine, and why they have carried on for 13 months with the same budget?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I admire the hon. gentleman's spirit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.

October 10, 1979
Oral Questions FINANCE


INTENTIONS RESPECTING PROPOSED MORTGAGE CREDIT PLAN
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance, who is enjoying his small deficits. In view of the fact that since his government came to power the carrying costs on a $60,000 mortgage have gone up by $1,500, which totally cancels out any benefits under his proposed mortgage credit plan, is the minister prepared to withdraw that plan and revise and amend it so that we will have a plan which will reduce mortgage interest rates so that Canadians can buy homes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman suggests a unique solution: mortgage interest rates have gone up, so take away the benefit that we are offering the people of Canada under the mortgage interest deduction plan and make it more difficult for them. No, we are certainly not going to withdraw that. We are carrying on, and there are 3,800,000 households in this country which are delighted with that plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Is the minister prepared to meet with his friends and associates in the residential construction industry who state that increased interest rates will result in a total depression in the construction industry, that they have total disregard for his mortgage credit plan, and therefore will he be prepared to withdraw it when his friends and associates tell him to?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to meet with any group at any time and commiserate with them at the dismal record of the last ten years which has brought them to this state and which has forced mortgage interest rates to go up and caused the bank rate to go up and caused the central bank rate to go up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and it relates to the five months old grain handlers' dispute at the port of Montreal.
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?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: 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.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yesterday, the minister announced substantial changes in the administration of the Yukon which put it well on its way to provincial status and, I might say, has led to the resignation of the commissioner.
How does the minister reconcile that sort of unilateral administrative action with the statements that he and the Prime Minister made with respect to Parliament and the parliamentary system and also their promise to consult with Yukoners through a referendum, to consult with the other provinces on substantial constitutional changes and to consult with the Indians as well? I would ask him if he is now ready to withdraw his instructions of yesterday and refer the matter to a parliamentary committee until at least he carries out some of the promises that he has made on this important question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the hon. member that it is the position of this government that responsibility must, and should, lie with those who are elected. The elected people are the legislative council of the Yukon territory which has been given the responsibility. I have given instructions to the commissioner to follow the mandate of this government, that is, to give those responsibilities to the elected people that we were able to give under the Yukon Act.
I have consulted with the Council of Yukon Indians. We have said that we will sit down for further consultations on the constitutional amendment with the Yukon territorial government, the Indians of the Yukon and the interested parties. But what I have to reiterate to the hon. member is that the elected people of the Yukon and those who elected them want to have responsibility in the Yukon, and that is what we have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 10, 1979


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the press release that the minister issued yesterday he said that the commissioner must from now on follow the instructions and the advice of the Executive Council of the Yukon. At the same time, he said he would keep for himself the responsibilities that he has under the Indian Act for the administration of the Yukon.
How does he reconcile that? Does that mean that the commissioner no longer has the right of veto, but that he reserves that right to veto the decisions of the so-called elected representatives in the Yukon, and how does he reconcile this with the position of the Yukon Indians who are opposed to any movement to provincial status while their'land claims are not even near to settlement?	,	'


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have to tell the hon. member that he is wrong in his allegation. First of all,.I did not tell the former commissioner that she was bound by the decision of the executive committee. I said, as the Yukon Act determines, that she was bound by the decision of the legislative council: they are the elected people of the Yukon. What we have also said, and the hon. member should be aware of this, is that in terms of the land claims the commissioner was not involved in the ongoing negotiations on land claims.
This government has stated clearly its recognition of land claims and the desirability of the early settlement of the land claims. That will go forward as well.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages copies of the order in council listing acting prime ministers, the acting ministers and the order in council listing parliamentary secretaries, Nos. PC 1979-1641 and PC 1979-2716. '
*


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 9, 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.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like, at the outset, to offer my best wishes to His Excellency the Governor General, who presided for the first time over the official opening of Parliament.
Since Mr. and Mrs. Schreyer have moved into Rideau Hall with their children they have not ceased to impress Canadians of all ethnic origins by the enthusiasm they display in carrying out their noble duties. In the course of their travels to the various regions of our country, they have rejuvenated our national pride and have reminded us of the values which form the very basis of our strength and our greatness. On behalf of the official opposition, I wish them health and happiness in their service to Canada.

I wish to commend the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the impressive way in which they have launched their parliamentary careers. The hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) spoke movingly of the multicultural richness of the Niagara peninsula, and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald) spoke with the conviction of the farmer that he is when he stressed the importance of preserving the family farm. Both men demonstrated they have much to contribute to Parliament. I was moved when the hon. member for Cardigan said that as a member of a new generation of parliamentarians he intended to bring his best efforts to serve his country. I am reminded that on all sides of the House we have new members who have been elected to the various parties, who show that the parliamentary system and the federal form of government in Canada is very vigorous indeed and that it can grow men and women of such value, prepared to give their best in this place in the service of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: While I am in a kindly mood, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to welcome to the House in his new role the man who now bears the title of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Although I am still able to restrain my enthusiasm over the electoral success he has had as the leader of his party, I have no hesitation in joining other Canadians in wishing him well as the new Prime Minister of our country. If in the future he should sometimes doubt the sincerity of my support, let him remember that even the friendliest surgeon must frequently use the knife.
As one who knows something about both the satisfactions and the frustrations of the office he now holds, I may be permitted a few words of advice. I would advise him that he will seldom be as powerful as people think he is to right what is wrong in Canada, nor seldom be as personally responsible as his admirers tell him he is for what is right about Canada. So
30

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
the secret of serenity is to be tolerant of the criticism, however undeserved he may think it is, and to be skeptical about the praise which probably will be equally undeserved. If the burden of office should sometimes seem too heavy to bear, let him be assured we will do our part to see that both the burden and the office pass quickly from his hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I offer congratulations to those who have been chosen to serve as ministers of the Crown. For Canada's sake we wish them well. Along with all of us, Mr. Speaker will have to become accustomed to the idea that while all the ministers opposite are equal in splendour and dignity, some are more equal than others; and some of the ministers are not opposite at all, they are hiding down the hall in the Senate. One of them has become the hero of hopeless candidates. He has proven that the best way to win is to lose. So now we have a cabinet where some are inners and some are outers. To compound the confusion, some of the inners do not have senior portfolios while some of the outers do. Some of the inners and outers are members of the House. They are called the in-House group. 1 dare not say what the other group is called.
I understand the in-House outers will be given free newspaper subscriptions to keep them up to date on what is going on in cabinet. Down the hall we have two inners and one outer who are being encouraged to become proficient in the use of carrier pigeons. We even have a doghouse group comprising outers like the now Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Grafftey) who originally found himself ceremoniously sworn in to absolutely nothing and then had his title abolished. Also we have an open-House group including inners like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) who, after years of advocating open government, has gone into hiding and demanded that his entire department be given an unlisted telephone number.
Looking over the cabinet 1 am reminded that I have been telling Canadians for some time in another context that we should all lower our expectations. I know some of the veteran members across the aisle, who have been secretly writing "honourable" in front of their names for years in keen anticipation of the great day, are more than a little chagrined at being excluded from the cabinet. I can only offer them in consolation the certain knowledge that in time being left out of this cabinet will be seen to be the greater honour.
Much more serious is the total exclusion from the inner policy-making cabinet of representatives from the three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. Originally British Columbia was excluded as well, I am told, until a powerful lobby was mounted to persuade the Prime Minister that the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) was more worthy than might immediately be apparent to the untrained eye. Also we have an inner cabinet where there is no minister as such from Alberta. Apparently the Prime Minister plans to speak in cabinet for Alberta and

for Canada simultaneously, as though their interests were always identical. That offers small comfort to the majority of Canadians living in other provinces who do not believe that what is good for Alberta is automatically good for Canada. 1 think that has been established by the seeming inability of the Prime Minister to reach an agreement with the Premier of Alberta on a pricing policy for petroleum.
During the election campaign the Tories promised a new federalism for Canada. Who would have believed that they meant one in which no voice speaks for Nova Scotians in the inner council of government, no voice speaks for New Brun-swickers and no voice speaks for Manitobans? Who would have believed that they meant a federalism in which the voice of British Columbia is barely tolerated as a reluctant afterthought and the voice of Alberta is presumed to be also the voice of Canada? To give voice to the voiceless, the members of Parliament of my party will go out of their way to ensure that before any government policy is translated into law, the Prime Minister and his inner cabinet will hear in this House from Liberal members the legitimate concerns of the people of Nova Scotia, the people of New Brunswick and the people of Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: What about Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members are worried about the members from Alberta. That is the point I was making: None of them are in the inner cabinet and that should worry them indeed.

I should like now to touch upon the manner in which, as members of the Liberal party, we intend to play the important role of representatives of the official opposition. There is no doubt that the people of Canada have given the Progressive Conservative Party a mandate to govern Canada and want us to give them the chance to administer our country without being exposed to political interference and chicanery. Not only do we accept and respect the decision of the people, but we will take seriously the responsibility with which we have been entrusted to co-operate constructively in the preparation of Canadian policies.
The Liberal party demonstrated very early following the election its strong desire to constitute a positive and constructive opposition, and I, for one, agreed to discuss with the Prime Minister current issues and the various personalities he would have to deal with at the summit in Tokyo and the Commonwealth conference in Lusaka.
I am happy to say that there was no tension or hostility in our discussions and that they reflected our mutual concern to put the national interest above any partisanship. I am also happy to note and to recognize publicly that the Prime Minister has scrupulously respected the confidential aspect of our discussions.
October 10, 1979

If any advice was of any use to him in Tokyo or Lusaka, I am happy about it and I am quite willing to repeat the experience. The national interest is the major concern of our party and we would take no pleasure in seeing our country badly represented at such vitally important international meetings.
Mr. Speaker, the government can continue to count on the co-operation of the official opposition for any of its initiatives which can improve the situation of Canada and Canadians. We do not believe in the senseless ritual which consists in voting against the government on every occasion and every issue. This type of irresponsible opposition that the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats have unfortunately practised in the past prevents Parliament from legislating and helps weaken its reputation among the people. Indeed, to vote against everything goes against the interests of the opposition parties as it erodes the influence that they can have on the people by keeping their negative votes for major issues which violate their basic political principles or which are in obvious conflict with the prime interests of the country.
On these last issues, on issues of this importance, we intend to give the government a fight such as this House has never seen before, with all the strength, the vigour and the determination that we can muster. On such major issues, we shall not hesitate to unite with other opposition parties to force the government to review its legislation under penalty of defeat in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister said that he intended to govern as if he had a parliamentary majority. Those are courageous words from a leader whose government can be defeated any day and on any question by the combined forces of the opposition parties, a leader who failed to convince the people to give him a majority, a leader whose candidates won half a million votes fewer than the Liberal candidates.
Those are courageous words from a leader who cowardly delayed his inescapable meeting with Parliament longer than any other prime minister in our history. Indeed, almost five months have passed since the election, almost five months during which the Canadian people waited for the government to organize itself and find the courage to submit its measures to Parliament.
In the extreme, such an improper delay could be forgiven if the government had put this time to good use. But instead, we saw a government which, at best, appeared vague and confused about the orientation it wants to give the country, distrustful of all those it suspects of being enemies of the regime in the public service and flatly inconsistent in its public statements.
Let me illustrate a few of the ways in which the government has frittered away the goodwill which the public extends to any government in the early months of its mandate.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
As one of his first acts in office, after pledging to bring government closer to the will of the people the Prime Minister appointed to the top economic policy-making position in cabinet a man who, after serving six months in Parliament, was strongly repudiated by the voters of Ottawa Centre. Senator de Cotret's continued presence in such a key cabinet position is a lingering insult to the voters who rejected him, an insult to the spirit of democracy and an insult to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Sensing the unacceptability of that decision, the Prime Minister indicated that the senator should seek election to this House when the opportunity arose. Those, I believe, were his words. The senator, on the other hand, has shown no enthusiasm at all for subjecting himself to yet another repudiation by the electorate. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should give Senator de Cotret a chance, or perhaps an ultimatum; either he becomes a candidate in one of the vacant ridings of Prince Albert or Burin-St. George's in the November 19 byelections, or he vacate his seat in cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 want to make it clear that 1 do not direct the same criticism to members of the cabinet from Quebec. It is important that every province have representatives in cabinet, and if they cannot be elected 1 have no strong objection toward their being appointed. But the Conservatives elected more than 50 members from Ontario. It is astonishing that the Prime Minister found it necessary to pass over practically all of them and give a cabinet seat to an Ontario candidate who was defeated.
Equally astonishing is the fact that the senator occupies one of the Ontario seats in the inner cabinet while metropolitan Toronto, which elected some 12 Tory members, has no representative in that central policy-making group.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here is another example of the government's ineptitude: the issue of the location of the Canadian embassy in Israel. During his first press conference after the election, the Prime Minister solemnly stated he would keep his electoral promise to move our embassy to Jerusalem. He said he would not tolerate senior civil servants of the government or anybody else for that matter telling him what to think. Like a man of honour, he was going to take action and deliver the goods.
The Prime Minister did not suspect then that nobody would suffer more from his policy than those whose votes he wanted to attract. The main priority of the Jewish community of Canada is to protect their civil rights against any boycott threat from the Arab countries. Yet at this time, precisely due to the growing opposition aroused by this government's policy in this matter, the public is not as willing to support an

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
anti-boycott legislation as it was before and that legislation has been pushed back to the bottom of the government's list of priorities.
Through inexperience or naivete, 1 do not know, the Prime Minister did not realize how very significant the move of our embassy was in all countries of the Middle East. He seemed to believe that what pleased the Conservative voters in Toronto would please the rest of the world. But once he was faced with a strong opposition from the rest of the world, he retreated with a rapidity worthy of an Olympic champion. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) did not do much to make up for the foolish antics of the government. On the contrary, he thoughtlessly stated that the Arab world's barks were worse than its bites. Well, Mr. Speaker, those are the bites which now cause serious injuries to exporting companies and Canadian workers.
It is one thing to make formal statements on a matter of principle and to accept with lucidity the repercussions involved. It is another thing to defend obstinately a highly controversial position although it might have been conceived rapidly without taking into account all its possible repercussions. However, after it became obvious even to the Progressive Conservatives that their position on the move of our embassy was dangerous, that it would be harmful to the fragile peace talks in the Middle East and that it was jeopardizing the economic interests of our country, one would have expected that the government recognize its error by trying to save face as best as possible.
Nothing of that happened. On the contrary, we saw one of the most painful sights in the political annals of this country. To evade any personal embarrassment, the Prime Minister chose to humiliate his former leader. Like a scapegoat, Robert Stanfield was dispatched to the Middle East where he is dragging himself miserably from one capital to another, supposedly to win time for the Prime Minister when in fact he is only gathering contempt for a government which is inexorably lurching toward a reversal of position all the more humiliating that it will have been delayed so long.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Another Suez!


An hon. Member:: Spending millions for nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The third example of the confusion of this government also has to do with foreign policy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) went before the United Nations Assembly and urgently appealed for greater generosity and better co-operation from all countries in the area of human rights and social justice. Several people, including us, think that secret and discreet diplomacy is more efficient than great speeches to ensure those rights. But we are not for that matter reproving the generous intentions of the minister. What we are reproving is the contradictory statements made by this government, because at the very moment

the hon. lady was urging the other countries to have more compassion for the plight of the oppressed and presumably help them with their money, as without economic justice human rights have no meaning, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) was warning the poorer nations at the Malta and Belgrade conferences not to come and beg for increased help from Canada whatever their needs. The Minister of State for the Canadian International Development Agency (Mr. Asse-lin) who is sitting in the other place with his carrier pigeons said to the press of this country that the government intended to reduce the amounts to be spent on foreign aid.
The net result of all this, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada's solid and established reputation as an open, committed and generous ally of the Third World in the fight for greater economic and social justice has changed overnight to one of hypocrisy. Canada will support any initiative to further the cause of social justice and economic development in the Third World provided we are not asked to contribute a single penny. We will support any action that could prove useful provided somebody else foots the bill. That is the hypocritical message this government is sending abroad. Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs is going against her own urgings at the United Nations when she suggests that Canada should perhaps concentrate its help on developing countries which are making real economic progress and reduce its help to poorer countries. That is like being in favour of medical insurance for healthy people, Mr. Speaker, while leaving to private charity the task of looking after seriously ill people.
No wonder the poorer countries which had considered Canada to be one of their strongest and most dedicated allies are beginning to view us as not so reliable friends. Mr. Speaker, when the Progressive Conservative Party came to power, Canada had very few enemies throughout the world. Within a few short months, this government has managed to set against us Argentina, Pakistan, several African countries and every Near Eastern nation. Quite a success, Mr. Speaker, which does not lead us to expect much from this government.
This recital of confusion could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. How many times did we hear before the election that if the Progressive Conservatives were to take power, they would restore the supremacy of the House of Commons. Ever since the election, the Progressive Conservatives have taken every opportunity to reiterate their commitment to a more open and more effective Parliament. However, there was but one problem-they had no desire whatsoever to convene this Parliament, Mr. Speaker. And while the House was not sitting, they have transferred senior portfolios from the House of Commons to the Senate; they have set up what they called parliamentary committees, on which actually only Progressive Conservative members sit; they have disclosed to the Progressive Conservative caucus, long before they were published, the results of ministerial research on energy and transport; they have spent some $10 billion through mere Governor General's warrants
October 10, 1979

without being in any kind of a hurry to seek parliamentary approval; and finally, they have announced budgetary measures out of this House.
The new government starts from a position of considerable economic strength.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is the funny party this week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The members opposite will have to realize that the telegraph has been invented and that what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) had to say in Great Britain a couple of weeks ago was heard in Canada and should be read by them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Their finance minister, the one who they are seemingly smirking at now, told an audience in England three weeks ago:
The underlying state of the Canadian economy is strong and healthy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thank you, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Despite the excesses of the previous
government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some of them will remember the words I once used, "a healthy economy in a difficult world".


John Carnell Crosbie: "The land is strong".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, the land is strong, but I am afraid that it is being seriously weakened and undermined by that government across the aisle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At the time when the Conservative government came to power the economy had achieved a first quarter growth rate of 1.7 per cent, or 6.8 per cent on an annual basis. That is a real growth rate of 6.8 per cent. There were
10,286,000	Canadians employed in May, which is an increase of 366,000 over the previous year. Over the same 12 months the number of unemployed had been reduced by 74,000, indicating that our rate of job creation was higher than the rate at which new people were entering the labour force. The rate of unemployment in May was 7.7 per cent, down from 8.5 per cent one year earlier.
The consumer price index stood at a year over year increase of 9.3 per cent in May, down from a 12-month increase of 9.8 per cent in April. In the first quarter of 1979 industrial corporation sales were 17 per cent higher than in the same quarter a year earlier, and after tax profits had risen 57 per cent. The value of exports increased by $556 million in the
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
first quarter, more than half a billion dollars, compared with the fourth quarter of 1978. Total farm cash receipts between January and May of this year were 20 per cent higher than a year earlier.
When the Liberal government left office Canada's textile, clothing and steel industries were, like many others, operating at full capacity. We led the industrialized world in the rate of job creation. Canada ranked first in the world among exporters of forest products, first in the export of fish and fish products, first in the export of minerals. Despite the continuing critical problems of inflation, unemployment and slow growth, which Canada shares, as the hon. members opposite are discovering, with every other industrialized country, we in the Liberal party are proud of the economic achievements which we have helped to secure for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the new government assumes its responsibilities, it inherits the stewardship of an economy and country whose strengths are firm and deep. As I just quoted the Minister of Finance a moment ago, the underlying state of the Canadian economy is strong and healthy. In the exercise of that stewardship, it will be necessary for the government to focus its attention on those major policy areas which will also be our preoccupation on this side of the House-economic growth and stability, the price and supply of energy, the unity of our country and its people, the way Canada is governed and the way in which we meet our responsibilities in the world community. As it faces these priorities, the government has already given cause for serious doubts about the quality of its judgment, doubts which we intend to bring vigorously to the forefront of parliamentary debate.
I cannot give too many examples arising from the Speech from the Throne yesterday, but it seems to me it is worth underscoring a theme which is recurrent in several pages of the Speech from the Throne and which was recurrent today in the answers given by the Prime Minister and Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that there will be a new spirit of co-operation in Canada, a new federalism. We will re-establish, the Speech from the Throne says, "the spirit of partnership and renewal which are fundamental to our federation." I quote again as follows:
My ministers believe that the way to build a whole nation is to respect our individual parts-
Then it goes on further to say:
During the past four months, my ministers have made every effort to change the climate of federal/provincial relations which has prevailed in recent years.
Many, many years, Mr. Speaker. After all these words we have two examples. 1 quote the Governor General again as follows:
As a result of their efforts, there has been visible progress. An agreement on lotteries has been concluded and agreement in principle has been reached with certain coastal provinces concerning offshore mineral resources.

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
Are there any other examples? None. Later on is the speech you will see, Mr. Speaker, that they are going to bring in an amendment to the Immigration Act. In terms of those five months, however, and in terms of the new spirit of co-operation, they reached two agreements which undid agreements reached by the previous government. There had been an agreement on lotteries reached by the former minister of fitness and amateur sport, the minister from British Columbia. There had been an agreement with the ten provinces which gave some of the share of the lotteries to the federal government and some to the provincial governments. What is this new spirit? We tear up an agreement which is favourable to the provinces and federal government and replace it with an agreement which is favourable to the provinces.


An hon. Member:: A give-away.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, giving away some $50 million to $70 million per year. They are hoping to get some of that money back. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism (Mr. Paproski) is smiling because he knows how little he will get back, if any. I know he will get a few tickets for the Olympics, Mr. Speaker, and I hope he will invite me to share them. As a matter of fact he already has, Mr. Speaker; I thank him for his graciousness.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I will take you over the ski jump.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will go over the ski jump if he comes with me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then what about the agreement concerning offshore mineral resources? There had been an agreement there also, one that the federal government signed with the three maritime provinces. It was an agreement according to which practically all the revenues were given to the provinces-the net revenues-since the federal government was paying the "upfront" costs. There had been an agreement not to quarrel over jurisdictions. What is this new spirit of federalism, Mr. Speaker, this new nation-building, this new way of building our whole nation which is to respect our individual parts? It is to give it all to them, Mr. Speaker-tearing up the agreement they signed of their own will and giving them the whole works. As I said last year in the Speech from the Throne debate, these are great victories for the Prime Minister who then was bragging about Kingston where he had given, I think, five things that the provinces had asked of him. Now he has given a few more.
It is all very well to talk of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, in an area where the ten provinces together agree that they should get more from the federal government, as in lotteries, and one has to make the difficult assessment of who gets what, as on the price of energy. We have just heard from the Prime Minister and his government that they are giving it very earnest study and consideration, that they do not know if they are going to have any results in time for the budget and whether they are going to be able to bring in a new pricing
[Mr. Trudeau.)
agreement such as was requested or suggested by the caucus committee on energy, meaning some increase of $5 or $6 next year-we do not know, Mr. Speaker. But this is an area where co-operation really means something. We have not heard from the Prime Minister if it was Premier Lougheed who told him to go shake himself or if it was Premier Davis. We do not know what the results of these talks were, but we do know that in this spirit of co-operation it will be important for the Prime Minister to bring about some concrete results.
The question of the referendum is another area where the new era of co-operation has brought a great decision. The federal government has decided to give up this one tool it had to counter the separatist government of Quebec which will hold a referendum of its own. What is this new spirit of co-operation which says to the separatist government of Quebec, "If you don't like referendums we won't have any"? Some of the provinces do not like the federal government sending decentralized departments into their jurisdictions so the federal government announces it is going to bring to an end the federal program of decentralization which would ensure a federal presence across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This would show the provinces in a visible way that there is a federal government, with a federal bureaucracy which is at their service and which is prepared to work for them in their cities, towns and villages. The government puts an end to this, Mr. Speaker. So there is a very, very obvious distinction between our approach to federal-provincial relations, which is to stand for all of Canada and which is to say, Mr. Speaker, that you do not save Canada if through compromise and abdication you have pleased the ten provincial premiers and you still have the word "Canada" written on the maps of the world. You save Canada if you have a government that can speak for Canada and can say that it is in the interests of the people of Canada that this be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Speech from the Throne stated "that the way to build a whole nation is to respect our individual parts". Yes, Mr. Speaker, but there are some cases where you cannot please all the provinces on the pricing of energy. Then 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.
During the election I recall that the Prime Minister talked a lot about Canada being a "community of communities". He never quite explained to us what he meant by that, but we see now what he meant, Mr. Speaker. A community of communities is a place in his mind where all the communities get the last word and the community of those communities, Canada, takes second place to the will of all the provincial premiers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 10, 1979


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is not a new tendency in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Six years after confederation the great parliamentarian and Liberal, Edward Blake, had this to say:
The future of Canada, I believe, depends very largely upon the cultivation of a national spirit... we must find some common ground on which to unite, some common aspiration to be shared, and I think it can be found alone in the cultivation of that national spirit to which I have referred.
What is this government doing for that national spirit when it gives up to the provinces very important areas of federal jurisdiction?
May I also quote Mr. Henri Bourassa, a Canadian nationalist well known on all sides of this House and who sat in this House with great distinction for 40 years, 1 believe. Seeing the spirit which developed at the time and which is very similar to the spirit developing now in Canada-and which we fought in this election campaign, Mr. Speaker-Mr. Bourassa warned as follows:
-there is Ontario patriotism, Quebec patriotism, or western patriotism, each based on the hope that it may swallow up the others, but there is no Canadian patriotism, and we can have no Canadian nation when we have no Canadian patriotism.
That is what we are asking of this government, Mr. Speaker-to create a spirit of Canada and to bring in policies which are not an abdication of its responsibilities. I think the Prime Minister is influenced by Mr. Jim Gillies whom we knew when he sat in this House. He was reported in The Globe and Mail of August 27 as having said that a traditional Conservative believes that no government is the best government in the most narrow of all senses.
I believe that is what we have in this government, Mr. Speaker. This is what the neo-conservatism is: it is a feeling that this government cannot govern. It think it is well justified in having doubts about itself, Mr. Speaker. It is a feeling that this government cannot govern so let us give it up to the provinces and they can govern. They can have the Crown corporations. They can have their corporations on energy. They can organize their economy and use the tool of the Crown corporation in order to serve the people of their province. This government believes that no government is the best government. It is really withering away, and withering away the spirit of Canada in the process. That is what we on this side will combat to the best of our abilities.
In the question period we heard the government-the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance explain lamely that an energy pricing agreement would soon be reached. Perhaps not this week or next, perhaps not this month or next, but hopefully next year, Mr. Speaker, because then the agreement put together by our government when it was in office will expire. Instead, what have we heard? We have heard hints of possible acceleration in the rate of price increases. As members on our side have pointed out, acceleration would lead almost inevitably to double digit inflation and an economic slowdown in the consuming provinces.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
I need not remind this House that the problem of guaranteeing a sure supply of energy to Canadians at the price they can afford is the most urgent and critical economic issue facing this Parliament. Could anyone fail to be alarmed when they compare the growing energy crisis facing all countries and the fumbling backtracking and confusion that has accompanied the government's lack of energy policies since the election? Could anyone fail to be alarmed when we know that each fumbled energy opportunity exposes Canada to greater inflation? The government has shown no sign of being able to cope with this problem. Indeed, I would say their actions over the last four months have given Canadians a great deal to worry about. I speak of their jeopardizing our agreements with foreign suppliers, foolish antics over domestic pricing, a secret giveaway of federal powers to deal with offshore resources, and appalling fumbling over Petro-Canada.
In the last two years of our government, Mr. Speaker, we had managed to make arrangements with Venezuela and Mexico to ensure an interim supply of oil to eastern Canada. Those arrangements would lead to such countries using the proceeds of their sales to purchase Canadian exports worth billions of dollars. Now, what about those arrangements? Are they in jeopardy? Will they come through? Will the government be able to pull off what we had negotiated?
On the pricing issue, it was only when they came to office that those opposite saw federal-provincial relations were more than Sunday school picnics. Provincial premiers do not disagree with Ottawa or among themselves because of mere personality clashes. They disagree because their interests are different. The division over energy among those three great Tories, Mr. Lougheed, Mr. Davis and the great leader opposite, are deeper today than they were ten years ago. If the Prime Minister hopes to be a leader he will need more than secret meetings in Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal. He will need to take the tough actions which are in the interest of all Canadians, actions that will not be universally popular but which will ensure new sources of energy, energy at a fair price which does not cripple families who are worried over what price they will pay for their furnace oil this winter, and, in some regions, whether there will be enough oil for every family. The Prime Minister must consider those who drive to work and their worry whether gasoline will go up ten, twenty or thirty cents a gallon this winter.
The long summer of Tory platitudes from mountain retreats is over; the realities of fall and winter are upon us. Canadians want to know the score on the energy question. Where does the government stand? Our position was clear and it is clear. We subsidized the consumer. We allowed prices to increase only enough to keep new production coming on-stream. We were not loved by every premier but we were responsive to the needs of every Canadian. I do not mind the premiers loving the Prime Minister to death. I am worried if they love Canada to death, and I am worried that this government will not be able to reach tough agreements.
Our position on offshore jurisdiction is equally clear and responsive. I have never considered the offshore question a

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
fight over money. Indeed, our deal with the maritimes which was signed, sealed and delivered in this House in the Commonwealth Room was a better financial deal for the Atlantic provinces because we agreed to pay the costs to reach the production stage. But I tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that on this side we will fight vigorously, not against the producing provinces getting financial benefits, but against a diminution of the federal power to act on resource. Because only a strong national energy policy will lead Canada out of the crisis that is threatening the economies of the western world.
First, the federal government has a right and a responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient new exploration and production; second, to negotiate internationally for Canada's offshore rights; third, to settle interprovincial quarrels; fourth, to set a fair domestic and a fair export price; and fifth, to see that citizens in poorer provinces have access to adequate supplies at reasonable prices.
Ottawa's obligation to do these things is not only a constitutional duty that cannot be given away, it is what Canadians want when they elect a national Parliament. I say to this government: accept the responsibility that comes with office and stop running away from the job. But if you feel compelled to run away, if you must run away, run away from your insane policy on Petro-Canada.
This government has abandoned just about everything it stood for in the election. Why does it stick to the foolish stand it took on Petro-Canada? That is almost as ridiculous as the leader of the NDP travelling across Canada trying to make people believe that Petro-Canada was his brain-child. 1 am afraid he is going to repeat this statement again and again, so let me just remind him of a few facts. When we published our white paper on an energy policy for Canada in June, 1973, it set out the need for "a national petroleum company which would provide a vehicle by which the government could seek to obtain knowledge of the domestic and international petroleum industry." In September, 1973, the national Liberal policy convention adopted a motion calling for the government to establish such a corporation. In December, 1973, I announced in this House that a bill would be forthcoming that would create that national petroleum company. In May, 1974, we introduced Bill C-32 and the government was defeated by the combined forces of the Tories and the New Democrats.
What happened? We then obtained a majority. We no longer needed that party to get our legislation through as the new leader of the NDP seems to think. Did we say that is no longer our priority, that it was the brain-child-what a brain!-of the leader of the New Democratic Party? We did not, Mr. Speaker. In the first days of the thirtieth Parliament we introduced the new bill giving existence to Petro-Canada. It was given royal assent on July 30, 1975, after a long, hot summer of debate-43 hours of discussion, 14 committee meetings and a filibuster by two or three members opposite who now sit in the front benches. It was the government that we then headed which brought this bill to fruition at the end of a long, hot summer, and not with the help of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, let me just come back to the government and remind them that every Canadian knows these facts. Every nation which is seriously looking after the energy security of its citizens has a national oil company. Even Mrs. Thatcher changed the British Tories' pledge to privatize British National Oils.
The next fact: 91 per cent of our oil and gas is owned by eight multinationals. Petro-Canada is a company that is well-managed and successful. Petro-Canada has had huge success in the Arctic, in Nova Scotia, off Newfoundland and in the west. Petro-Canada is a company that is profitable and risk taking at the same time. Finally, Petro-Canada is a company that allows Canadians for the first time to know what is going on in this industry and to have some say in what is going on.
This government has taken every stand and no stand on Petro-Canada. It has announced at various times that it will sell it, save it, shield it, shave it, smother it and then, like every other problem they have, study it to death, all in the same month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me say this in closing. The threatened status of Petro-Canada is a matter of major and mounting concern, not only to the official opposition, but to private individuals and groups which have petitioned the government to keep Canada's national oil company intact, in place and in action. The Canadian Association of Consumers, the Chamber of Commerce, the trade unions, the provinces, the major newspapers, the Canadian small business organizations, presidents of oil and gas companies, bankers and businessmen, all have told the government it should not proceed with its intention to remove Petro-Canada as an effective instrument of national policy.
Now the government has established a study group headed by one of the leading Tory fund raisers in Ontario to study Petro-Canada, a man who I understand is involved with a company that talked of buying Petro-Canada. If that is their way of examining the issue in a detached way, the minister is right in giving the undertaking that he did a little earlier in the House to look into the background of some of these people who are going to look at the future of Petro-Canada.
We in the Liberal party would be derelict in our duty to Canada and inconsistent with our own conviction if we did not fight the government with every means at our disposal over Petro-Canada. Whatever is done, our view is that Petro-Canada must remain one strong, healthy corporation that can act for Canada, that remains intact, that can be an instrument of national policy, that can take the necessary exploration risks, that can help protect all Canadians from the energy crisis.
October 10, 1979

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), 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.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and take part in this debate for the first time as Prime Minister of this country. I must say I am pleased to find that the former prime minister is adapting so well to a role which obviously very much fits a man of his talents and temperament.
On behalf of the government I want formally to express our appreciation to the Governor General and Mrs. Schreyer for the work they have done for Canada during their period of office. It has been a service that has been very energetic, one that has sought to bring the values and customs of that office to all corners of the country.
I also want to congratulate most sincerely the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That is always a difficult occasion for new members rising for the first time to make their maiden speech on the first sitting day of the House of Commons. I join in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) in expressing our congratulations to those two members who made very direct, businesslike speeches, speeches in the tradition of the regions from which they come and in the tradition that animates and moves most members, whether they have come newly or again to this House of Commons.
I want also, Mr. Speaker, after the great struggle in which we had to drag you from your seat yesterday, to congratulate you on your re-election by the House of Commons to preside over our proceedings. I am sure it will be a presidency and direction that will be as distinguished jn the future as it has been in the past. We wish you well and wish all of us well as you preside over this central institution of the democracy of the land.
I must say to the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, how much I appreciated his counsel and advice in the early days of my prime ministry, his willingness to meet with me, particularly in preparation for trips abroad, and his absolute co-operation in the work of transition from one government to another. It was very much appreciated. It was another signal contribution on his part to this country. I want to take this opportunity here to thank him formally and directly for that help at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As I said earlier, he seems to be taking very well to his new role. It is an area in which I have certain experience. He will recognize as time goes on that there is a time to stop fighting the last election and to begin thinking about the future.
The Address-Mr. Clark


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If he does not do that, there is the hon. member from Winnipeg and there are others who will ensure that the party does that for him.
In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition raised the rhetorical question as to which of the premiers of Canada told me to go shake myself. Well, we all know that they all told him to go shake himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He raised the concern-and it is not unnatural that he would-that we have changed the system of cabinet government in the country. We have changed it principally in two ways. First, we have made public what had previously been kept secret about the way cabinets govern in this country. There has always been an inner cabinet in Canada. The difference is that with this regime, which believes in open government, the composition of that inner cabinet is public, whereas under the regime of the former prime minister the composition of his inner cabinet had been private.
Again the Leader of the Opposition raised a question about the strength of the influence of the voices from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Alberta. What has happened is that distinct from the kind of government we had prior to May 22 this is a government in which voices from all of the regions of Canada count and in which influence is not reserved to a select elite accumulated around the Prime Minister, in the office of the Privy Council and in the Prime Minister's office. I should say to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should say to the former prime minister. I wanted to raise his hopes because there is no question that none of the hon. members opposite are going to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am a Prime Minister from Alberta, and I am no less a Canadian for that. If he had recognized some time ago the fact about Albertans and, indeed, about citizens of other provinces, that we can be loyal to our provinces and loyal to our nation, he would not have encountered the difficulties he and his government did.
I want to extend my personal congratulations to all members of the House of Commons elected here. I have had the opportunity to extend those congratulations personally to several of them, but I want particularly to extend a welcome to those members of Parliament who are elected for the first time because, as they will find, they are members of a very special institution which is clearly unique in this land. This is the central institution of Canada. It is the one place where every corner of a vast country has the right to be represented and the power to be heard. The traditions of the institution change, but
38

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Clark
our constant obligation here is to be the one place where the whole nation comes together, speaks frankly together and acts together.
In my view, this Parliament is not now as strong as it needs to be because too much power rests with the executive of Parliament and with the executives of political parties; too many limits are placed on the right of private members to know, to inquire, to propose and to be responsible for their own actions and for their own decisions. In particular, the historic right of Parliament to control the public purse was eroded by guillotine rules which meant that each year billions of dollars of public spending went unscrutinized and unchallenged. Parliamentary committees were denied the authority and the resources to have a positive influence on public policy. Members of this House of Commons, people sent here to represent their constituents and the interests of all of Canada, were denied information which should have been made public. As a result of that, great numbers of our fellow citizens have been turning away from Parliament and have ceased to regard this' as the vital, national institution which it must be seen to be.
Parliament is the only institution we have which can rightly claim to represent this whole nation. This Parliament is in danger of losing its constituency, and one of the solemn obligations upon those of us who are fortunate enough to be members of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada is that that is a trend which we must change and reverse. That will require change in some of our rules and some of our practices, but more has to change than just the rules of Parliament. There must be a change in the attitude toward the institution on the part of all members, not just those who are ministers of the Crown.
I am confident that that will occur because there are so many members here in all parties who came to this House of Commons-and I quote the words of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald)-"to make Parliament work".
The government will be introducing proposals for rule changes and has already indicated changes in attitude which, in effect, will provide a latitude to private members of the House of Commons which can be used, if members choose, to obstruct all progress here. That will be one capacity. That will be one consequence which could flow from the latitude we intend to give to private members of the House of Commons. Or it can be used to make the House of Commons the vital centre of discussion and decision in this land.
I hope that this Parliament might be characterized by very open inquiry. Naturally, on some questions some members have their minds made up already. So do some parties, and 1 am not looking particularly at the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). However, on many of the most important questions we face there are no easy answers, yet there is an obligation to act and, indeed, in many cases an urgent obligation to act. As a government we cheerfully accept the responsibility to put forward answers when we think we have them.
(Mr. Clark.)
What is more important is that we cheerfully accept the responsibility to initiate unfettered inquiry where that might yield better answers than the ones we propose or the ones we have. I give the commitment now as we start this session in the House of Commons that this government will welcome amendments to legislation from whatever part of the House they come if their proposers can persuade us of their merits.
I hope that attitude of openness will extend throughout this Parliament and to most major questions, and that this will be a Parliament where decisions are based on evidence and not on ideology. The government itself is proposing action which questions certain long-held assumptions concerning, for example, the notion that Crown corporations, once established, must stay in the public domain forever, or the attempt to keep public information secret, or concerning the nature of relations between the central and the provincial governments. We do not expect that everyone will agree, but we hope it will not become the habit of any party in this House to resist reform just because it is new.

There is an obvious fact about the forthcoming decade: it is that a substantial part of the old formulas has become worthless. We must reconsider our procedure to develop policies in several areas and it rests with Parliament to undertake openly such a task. The drafting of the following reports is almost completed and they will be submitted to the standing committees well before Christmas: to wit, the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) on foreign policy; the report of the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) on cultural policy; the report of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) on parliamentary reform; the report of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on pensions and that of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) on fisheries. A joint committee will be set up next week to consider the matter of atomic energy. Moreover, we want to complement the proceedings of standing committees by setting up select committees that will deal with specific matters. The first select committees were announced in the Speech from the Throne and I add today that we intend to suggest that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) be appointed chairman of the select committee on the specific needs of the handicapped and disabled; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), chairman of the select committee on the voluntary sector; the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jupp), chairman of the select committee on foreign ownership, and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), chairman of the select committee on measures necessary to prevent recurring cost overruns. We hope that those committees will be entirely set up and active next week and that they will submit their reports for the consideration of Parliament and government at the beginning of 1980.
October 10, 1979

If the House accepts the challenge that we are placing before it, I believe that we can make this again an instrument which is strong enough and respected enough to reflect the diversity of an exciting country. Instead of talking about the instruments of national action and national unity, we can become an instrument of national unity and of national action, and that is the purpose of the reforms that we propose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the phrase I had used during the election campaign, a phrase concerning communities. That is a matter of great concern to me. The concept is of great concern to me because in recent years the sense of community in Canada, despite the best intentions of the hon. gentlemen opposite, has become unravelled. That was evidenced most dramatically by the election in Quebec of a government explicitly committed to dismembering the country.
But that erosion of common purpose has grown in other ways as well, such as in the decision of the Canadian Labour Congress that they could not trust government enough to continue in consultation; the mutual suspicion that has clouded relations between the federal and provincial governments; the growing gulf between Canadians working in the private sector and Canadians working in the public sector; a sense among private citizens that their government and their Parliament was ignoring their interests and their views. More was happening in recent years than just the development of interest groups and narrow movements which arise occasionally in every country. There was a pattern of things coming apart in Canada, of the centre being literally unable to hold, and the irony was that every assertion by the centre of its authority weakened that authority. The lesson is that this nation cannot be ordered together. This nation must be brought together, and the starting step must be to establish a basis of mutual trust, of goals that emerge from the community of Canada rather than being imposed upon the community of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As a new government we have believed that the way we should begin to knit the nation together was to establish a climate of calm and of co-operation. My ministers have travelled and consulted widely with the provinces, labour, business, co-operatives and a multitude of groups and individuals, sometimes concluding agreements, more often establishing the basis for future agreement. The fact is that the central government can lead the nation in resolving difficult problems only when the central government is seen again as a leader which itself respects the other partners of the Canadian confederation.
The Address-Mr. Clark


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it had been obvious for several years that continuous confrontation had become a rule, a kind of system for federal-provincial relations.
As a new government, we have set a first immediate objective: the easing of the climate of federal-provincial relations. This is what we did. Action has been taken in that perspective.
1 think, for instance, of the agreement signed as regards Loto Canada. An agreement in principle has also been reached between the new government and some coastal provinces concerning offshore mineral resources. In the same spirit, we have decided not to reintroduce in the Commons the bill on the referendum as proposed by the former government. This measure was perceived in Quebec as an act of aggression and it is precisely the kind of attitude that my government intends to change.
So, my government has the firm intention of altering the atmosphere of federal-provincial relations. Concrete measures have been taken in recent weeks and others will be in the future. We believe that it is possible to solve several problems without any constitutional amendment and without revising the constitutional tool we now have at our disposal.
This is not a one-way process. In some cases, the answers we will choose might imply a jurisdictional transfer from the federal government to the provinces, whereas in others it might be a transfer from provincial jurisdictions to the federal authority.
Of course, there are skeptics in this House. It is quite possible, however, with a will, with a determination to chase partners rather than conflicts, for a Canadian government to get co-operation, understanding and agreements.
During this parliament, the issue of federal-provincial relations will still lead to controversy and intense debate. It is my hope there will be indeed outspoken debates. It is my hope that every member in this House will share a determination to contribute fully and outspokenly, with deep conviction but without prejudice, because, Mr. Speaker, no party can hope to have all the wisdom needed, or all the answers. The government will listen to members on this side and members opposite who may have different perspectives and priorities. It is this government's view that all hon. members, wherever they sit in this House, want to have a strong Canada and maintain our confederation.


Mr. Olivier:: Say that to Rene Levesque.


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone asked me to tell that to Rene Levesque. In my judgment, it is the duty of all members of the House of Commons to tell that to Rene Levesque.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Clark


Charles Joseph Clark: And it is important for all of us in the House to end that personal preoccupation with Rene Levesque. The message which we are interested in delivering is not to the premier of the province of Quebec; it is to the people of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We believe that there is a much wider range of opportunity for accomplishment with us as a government prepared to seek new approaches with the people of Canada than there was with the former government, which was determined to continue old quarrels with the Premier of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) does not stop interjecting, I will quote sections of his report to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The results of the election in May left all of our parties deprived, in one way or another, of the balanced representation that might be considered ideal. That is a problem for our parties but it is a great opportunity for this Parliament. We can rise above narrow partisanship and help each other to achieve a better understanding of how our respective regions perceive, and are affected by, these national issues. I am not suggesting that any of the parties argue their own views less aggressively; only that in this Parliament, and especially on this subject, each of us should be more open to the views of the others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That will not be easy. It will require of us in this House an act of mutual trust, just as the conduct of federal-provincial relations, in our view, required a new spirit of mutual trust between Ottawa and the provinces.
The test of our federalism and its strength is not in the undoubted power of the central government to have its way. Rather it is in the willingness of the partners to act together. The success of our federalism will lie in our ability to accommodate the different kinds of communities Canadians choose to live in. These communities have different economic potentials, different economic strategies, and they have different cultural and social goals.
Confederation gave to the provinces not only real powers- and in some cases exclusive powers-which could be exercised in those fields, but it assigned to the provinces the sources of revenue, the economic means to exercise those powers effectively. That was the spirit in which the forests, the mines, the natural resources of another day and the revenues therefrom were assigned to the provinces. That is the spirit in which in 1979 this government agreed that the provinces which have offshore resources should control their development. The extent to which all provinces have the economic means to

exercise their powers will determine their ability to pursue their different cultural, social and economic goals. The greater their dependence on Ottawa for their revenues, the less likely they are to develop that diversity which is at the heart of the Canadian idea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In these so-called constitutional debates the real question at issue was not the law of the country but the nature of the country.


Miss Begin:: It is the country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? 1 ask that of the former minister: can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? Not only do I think we can, I believe we must if we are to honour the spirit of this country. One thing which is beyond debate, to my knowledge, is that everyone in the House accepts the absolute necessity of a central government strong enough to guarantee basic standards of service, instruments of growth and national co-ordination, and indeed capable of initiating and expressing national policy.
When it comes to the national interest, the final responsibility and the ultimate authority lie with Parliament. If paramount national interests were endangered by federal-provincial conflict or federal-provincial stalemate, this government and Parliament could act. There is no question that we would have the support of Canadian people in so acting. But asserting that ultimate power in emergencies is quite different from insinuating that ultimate power every day. The nation is more than the central government. The need for a national transportation policy, to take one example, is of an order quite different from the need for a national lottery. The nation will survive the provinces running the national lottery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed the nation will be much stronger if the government in Newfoundland uses wealth from offshore resources to build its economy directly, rather than having part of the proceeds recycled back from Ottawa. One fundamental fact is that there is a limit to what Ottawa can do, because there is a limit to what Ottawa can know. Ottawa cannot know the local needs, natures, and requirements of different corners of this country as well as the properly constituted governments of those provinces.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition quoted Edward Blake and approved of him. I will quote Sir John A. Macdonald on a matter where-one of the few times-I think Sir John was wrong. Sir John A. Macdonald would have preferred a unitary government. That is what he wanted; that is what he dreamed about. That was the model he had in his mind, but Sir John A. Macdonald was a practical, pragmatic man. He wanted to make the nation work. He was more interested in having a nation which worked than having a nation which accorded to his theories. He recognized that the nation was not built the
October 10, 1979

way he wished it was, and successful national governments since have recognized the limits of federal power. That is not a matter of constitutional law. It is a matter of common sense, and it is an approach which must be applied to the economy and the culture of Canada as well as to our constitution.

Today, Canadians want to recover control of such matters as concern them in their homes, in their communities. The challenge which this government, and this Parliament, must primarily face, is that of rerouting our Canadian economy. For the better part of the last ten years, we have constantly been plagued with a low rate of economic growth, a high rate of unemployment and a high rate of inflation. And short-term forecasts promise much more of the same.
Canadians have a right to ask themselves why, in as rich a country as ours, we have not been able to fare better. There is no doubt that the international situation is to be blamed in part. Today, we are feeling the effects of a slowing down in the economic activity in the United States-but we cannot blame the whole wide world for our problems. Canada is surely not in bondage. The failures in our economic policies have their roots here, not in Washington, Zurich or Jedda.
We have an alternative. We may go on pretending that we cannot solve our own problems, and looking for scapegoats. That will surely result in the realization of pessimistic forecasts. Or we can take on the job, which is ours anyway, of building this country. The time has come to roll up our sleeves and build this country.
[English)
Our goals as a government are clear. The Canadian economy must begin growing again much more close to its potential. Job opportunities must be created for Canadians, especially for groups like young people, women in the Canadian economy, and native Canadians, among whom unemployment is especially high. We must reduce the inflation which continues to rob Canadians of their savings and the real value of their incomes. Simply continuing existing policies will not work. That is why we intend to change the economic direction of Canada in several ways.
First we intend to open up economic policy-making in Canada. Under our system government does not control the economy; it can only influence it. If that influence is to be effective, economic signals from the government must be public, understandable, and certain enough so that they can be relied upon. The best way to ensure that is to lift the shroud which has enveloped the making of economic policy. That is why we propose to encourage pre-budget hearings by a committee of this House, so that Canadians can understand the economic issues and options before the government. That is why we intend to make public with each budget four-year revenue and expenditure estimates. As we indicated today, that is why we are quite prepared to have a committee of parliament look into major economic questions such as the questions relating to interest rate policy.
The Address-Mr. Clark
Second, we intend to be much more specific in economic policy. We believe that management of the large economic levers of fiscal and monetary policy should be stable and consistent. We reject fine tuning as an effective economic option. Instead, we recognize our economy is not monolithic but consists of a multitude of parts, each with its own sectoral or regional requirements. We intend to be sensitive to those specific needs and to tailor policies to fit them.
That is the approach reflected in the Speech from the Throne in its emphasis on developing regional strengths such as tourism, shipbuilding, fisheries, grain transportation, and northern mining, and in its commitment to stimulate the housing industry through tax credits for mortgage interest and property taxes and to provide new incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises. Those programs will create jobs, jobs which are stable because they are founded on inherent economic strengths.

The same objective-creating specific programs to meet specific economic requirements-served as a basis for the implementation of our other job creation programs. I am sure all members welcome the fact that in September the rate of unemployment was down for the seventh time in as many months. But we all know that this improvement is not shared by all Canadians, the rate of unemployment for women is still 2 per cent higher than that for men, more than 12 per cent of Canadians under 25 are unemployed which is nearly double the national rate. Although no official statistics are available in the case of natives we know for a fact that the rate of unemployment in that group is much higher than in others.
We intend to grapple with those problems. I will present the House with an employment strategy for women based on the principle that women have an undeniable right to participate equally in all sectors of the economy. That strategy will include steps to reduce occupational segregation through better training programs and contractual clauses that will recognize the women's responsibilities concerning the children and will increase the opportunities made available precisely to them under economic expansion programs.
In addition, our programs will underline the significant part played by the government which will become a leader in this area with the introduction of specific employment policies.
Still in that vein, we intend to set up a youth employment secretariat to co-ordinate and plan programs making training and job opportunities available to young Canadians. We will be reviewing the job tax credit program to promote on the job training for young people who do not have all the necessary skills and we will be introducing a better program to encourage young Canadians to serve their communities.
Sir, in seeking to broaden economic opportunities available to native Canadians, the government supports the growing

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Clark
desire among native people themselves to assume authority and responsibility for their own development.
The minister and 1 have recently had very useful conversations with representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood concerning, mainly, other matters, but certainly opening the door for discussion by which we can work together on important work opportunities for the native people of the land.
Finally, sir, I want to emphasize this government's determination to place much greater reliance on the private sector, and private sector broadly defined, whether in terms of business or in terms of volunteer agencies, to achieve our economic and social goals. In recent years, in many ways the federal government became a burden on our economy. Record deficits and virtually uncontrolled spending were sometimes explained as being intended to spur economic growth. They were nothing of the kind. They were a drag on the economy. We are implementing in this government a program of spending restraint, not because we believe it is one easy step from restraint to lower deficits and ultimately to a balanced budget. Our restraint program is intended to free resources to the private sector to encourage investment, to encourage business expansion and to encourage job creation, which we believe is the best way to generate the revenues which in turn will help us balance the budget of Canada. We intend to reduce the burden of government on the economy and offer practical incentives to individual Canadians to build a stake in our country.
I am confident that Canadians will respond to that kind of encouragement and incentive. As I have travelled this country in recent months I have sensed a growing confidence, almost an enthusiasm, among Canadians over the prospects for this country. We should be confident and we should be enthusiastic because there is literally no country in the world with a greater potential, with a greater capacity to build, and with a greater offer of liberty and opportunity to its citizens, than this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Sir, energy is just one example. Certainly we need a new agreement on pricing and more effective programs both to conserve energy and to increase its supply. My ministers and I, as the House knows, are discussing these questions now with the provinces, and I have every confidence we can reach an understanding that acknowledges our needs and acknowledges theirs.
But, the true significance of our energy situation is not what it requires in the short term. The true significance is what the energy situation in Canada offers our citizens in the long run. This country can be self-sufficient in energy within a decade. We can be free of the insecurity that is the price of dependence on supplies beyond our control. For many years we have talked about our energy potential in this country, about the billions of barrels of oil locked away in the tar sands, about our heavy oil deposits, our frontier potential, and our 500-year supply of coal. All we could do in those days was talk; we lacked the

national need and we lacked the economic rationale to develop the resources we talked about.
The time for talk is over. Resources which used to be too expensive to develop are becoming almost cheap at their price for Canadians. To that extent OPEC has done us an economic favour. The economics now make sense to take advantage of our resource potential. Our national need is evident. What we require is a national will to make that happen.
During his remarks the Leader of the Opposition referred to a phrase he had used often during the election campaign, a phrase to which I took the deepest exception. He suggested that Canadians should learn to lower their expectations. We disagree on many things, but we disagree on nothing more fundamentally than that, because I believe this is a time for Canadians to raise their expectations, not to lower them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are a nation of immense potential; immense potential in our physical resources and immense potential in our human resources, in the great strength that comes to a country like this by the fact that all of us, coming from every corner that is represented here in this House of Commons, have in our heritage, in our past and as part of our being, a different sense of what this country can become, and a different identity that, woven together, can create a vibrant and strong national identity.
There used to be a time in this country when Canadians feared the regions and feared the different identities that might develop. There is nothing to fear in the regions of Canada. There is nothing to fear in the differences of Canada. Those regions, those differences, and those resources are the strengths of our country.
Our challenge as a Parliament is to try to give the leadership to restore that sense of calm and that sense of co-operation that can bring Canadians together to work toward the realization of the individual dreams of Canadians across this country.
What we have tried to do in the Speech from the Throne is set down a beginning agenda, steps we can take to reform this institution to make it the vital centre of the nation again, steps we can take to start Canadians along the road to feeling a part of their country and to building a stake in their country. That is the work we invite Parliament and the people of Canada to join in accomplishing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by joining the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) in congratulating the mover and seconder, who both spoke so well yesterday, and I mean that completely. I agree with the Prime Minister that it is something which all of us who have been around this place for a few years must recall from time to time. It is a tough job to get up in this place for your first time. I, on behalf of my colleagues, want to congratulate those gentlemen most sincerely.
October 10, 1979

I would also like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in his new role. He is finding the same adept skill with the truth that he had as prime minister, and I am sure that that will persist, and 1 hope that he persists for many decades. 1 would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister on becoming the Prime Minister of this great country of ours, and 1 genuinely wish him well in the future.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Yesterday the Prime Minister announced in the Speech from the Throne his intention to introduce several measures this session. Some of these measures are good and we will support them. For instance, we are fully in favour of certain reforms which the new government intends to carry out to increase the powers of Parliament, as well as the freedom of information legislation it will introduce. For the time being, federal-provincial relations are certainly running a smoother course. No more confrontations with the provinces. We are fully in agreement with this new attitude.

So much for the good, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles:: It didn't take very long.


John Edward Broadbent: Yesterday I had the pleasure of joining the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other parties in paying just tribute to a former prime minister, John Diefenbaker. On that occasion I said that one of the things which characterized Mr. Diefenbaker was his view of Canada that this was a land that was certainly much more than the sum of its regional parts. When I, later in the day, heard the Speech from the Throne, I must say that I got a very different vision indeed from the present government, from the present Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister said in the throne speech, and they are his words and the words of the cabinet, that they were given a mandate to change. I agree with that. I think that the people of Canada throughout the breadth of our land did indeed want a change. They gave the Conservative party an opportunity. Indeed, I suspect that there was good will from all Canadians, those who voted for the Prime Minister's party as well as those who voted for the Liberal party, for our party and the Crcdi-tiste party during the summer months. The question is how has that mandate been utilized? How has that mandate for change been recognized in reality during the four and a half months since the government took office?
We agree with all the good things there are in the Speech from the Throne, the removal of confrontation in our federal system and a genuine attention to the concerns of other regions in advance of decisions. I agree with the concern on a number of matters in which the Prime Minister has expressed his interest, but what has been lacking throughout the summer and in the throne speech yesterday has been a perspective of
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
our great country, that it is something other than a mere collection of regions. If I had to contrast the Speech from the Throne and the attitude of the present Prime Minister with that of Mr. Diefenbaker's, whereas Mr. Diefenbaker said that we were more than the sum of our parts, the attitude that I am getting from this government is that we are somewhat less than the sum of our parts.
I suggest that if the government continues in this direction Canada will be in great trouble in terms of disunity, for opposite reasons to those which produced the kind of disunity that we had during the tenure of his predecessor. It is one thing to argue for new attitudes, and attitudes count in politics profoundly, but it is quite another thing to have a direction in policy that will clearly have as its implication the dismemberment of a nation, which is devoid of a broader national perspective designed to draw people together.
It is my serious concern, Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, that the new Conservative government has reacted, indeed, overreacted, to what was done by its predecessor. In saying that, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the Leader of the Opposition and his comments. I am sure that the members on the government side as well as in my party listened with a combination of disbelief and horror as the current Leader of the Opposition tried to leave the impression, as he has done for years, that he and he alone speaks for Canada. We have heard it all before, the talk about deja vu.
Where was the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal party when we lost our merchant marine off the east coast and west coast in recent history? Where were the Liberals in terms of a strategy in advance while the textile industry, shoe industry and the furniture industry in Quebec went, if not down the drain, down into serious trouble? Where were the Liberals, and where was the present Prime Minister, when Canadians on the prairies called for a speedy implementation of the Hall report that would have seen rail facilities, boxcars, and terminal ports provided for our western farmers? Where were the Liberals? Where were they in Cape Breton when serious capital investment in the steel industry there could have provided jobs instead of handouts? These are examples of what really produced disunity throughout our land, and it was the Liberal party, and only the Liberal party, that was in office.
If there has been one major source for the cause of problems which have occurred in our country, from British Columbia in the west to Newfoundland in the east, it has been connected with our natural resources. In all of my lifetime here, the party that sits at my right, with the exception of a few years, has stood by and, indeed, produced policies that saw us sell out our resources from region after region, instead of developing in this country a sound industrial nation based on those resources. That will come to be the most serious condemnation of the Liberal party in the history of our country. The present Leader of the Opposition cannot lecture the Prime Minister or anyone else on that subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Broadbent


John Edward Broadbent: The government has been given this mandate for leadership. There was no doubt from every survey that was taken during the campaign, not by our party or the other parties, but by the Gallup poll, that Canadians did have economic concerns, whether they were regional needs for jobs, unemployment in general, or inflation in general. That is what their concerns were all about, and they voted for a government which, instead of providing confrontation and sophistical arguments as we had for a number of years, would produce action on unemployment, inflation and energy.
The present Prime Minister campaigned, and I think campaigned correctly, on these issues. We differed in our solutions, but we had the same concerns as the present government. If his concerns were right in the campaign-as they were-what action has he taken in the last four and one-half months?
Before the election the Prime Minister, while he was in opposition, pointed out that wage increases were being outstripped by price increases and he called for action on inflation. Since the election, however, there has been no action on inflation-none at all. I remember very vividly that before the election the Prime Minister-

In a speech dealing with unemployment which he made in Quebec City, he assured Canadians living in the province of Quebec and elsewhere that he had a formula to strengthen the economy and create new jobs.

That was very early in the campaign, Mr. Speaker. He said it was important. 1 think he said also that under the former prime minister unemployment had increased by some 5 percentage points. That was before the election, however, and in the four and one-half months since there has not been an announcement of a single new job-creation measure.
I could go through the list till I come to interest rates, Mr. Speaker. It was the Conservative party that, through the "Happy Hacker", the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), who unfortunately is not in the House at the moment, wanted to destroy every public enterprise in Canada. He was instrumental in getting the Governor of the Bank of Canada before a committee on interest rates, and quite correctly pointed out that many other countries do not jack up interest rates all the time but recognize that investment comes where there is a growing economy-countries such as Switzerland and others, where low interest rates are maintained. The Conservatives talked about damage done to ordinary Canadians-small businessmen and homeowners. Before the election they spoke about it with passion, but after the election they approved not one, not two, but three increases in the interest rate.
1 have no trouble now in understanding what was once for me a contradiction in terms; that is the expression "Progressive Conservative." The message is clear: progressive before the election, and conservative after.
1 agree with some of the things the Prime Minister said in his speech today, especially as they referred to women and the young people, but there was nothing in his speech and no awareness in the Speech from the Throne of the crisis in the economy in North America.
I learned from the New York Times last Sunday that the Americans are seriously worried about their economy. Economists in government and outside are alarmed that we may find ourselves in a situation analogous to that of 1929 or the early thirties. This concern was not reflected in the Speech from the Throne. There was no suggestion of serious structural problems because of the interconnection of our economy with that of the United States. There was no call for action.
I agree with the Prime Minister that the people of the provinces, including the premiers, must agree to some new, all-embracing industrial strategy. I am certainly aware that it is not easy to work out the details of such a strategy. There was no determination in the Speech from the Throne, however, nor in the Prime Minister's remarks today was there any awareness of the need to mobilize effective national government leadership on these crucially important economic matters.
I think 1 would have the agreement of members of all parties when I say that high among the concerns of all Canadians and people of the industrialized world is the matter of energy. In the west we have partly created the problem for ourselves through our lack of concern for conservation measures. There are a variety of reasons for this. I am not too interested in delving into the past but rather in dealing with the present and future. No single aspect of the economy so profoundly affects our people now, and will in the future, as does energy. In the Speech from the Throne there were maybe three lines dealing with energy and for me they were rather alarming in their implications. I shall come back to that.
Quite apart from the question of energy in general, the question of pricing and means of developing alternative sources and other related matters, what was alarming to most of us in this country during the summer was the decision by the government to abolish Petro-Canada. I regard that as the most seriously negative decision made by the Prime Minister. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that if he persists with this course of action future historians will indeed have seen a turning point with this new government, a negative turning point in a decisively important part of our economy.
Just as Petro-Canada approaches its maximum usefulness, just as we are beginning to develop measures of energy security, just as we begin to pry ourselves from the grip of the multinationalists who dominate the industry, the Prime Minister decides to break it up. In my view rarely, if ever, have Canadians witnessed such a triumph of dogmatism over intelligence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Rarely have we seen such a betrayal of our long-range national interests.

October 10, 1979

1 feel there are Conservatives who recognize and accept their public ownership tradition. 1 could list those in the Conservative party who have recognized the need for a public sector in this country to serve important functions. Not only is the present Prime Minister betraying what I regard as the general interest; he is betraying a particularly important, if minor, aspect of his own party's traditions.
1 want to say something about Petro-Canada in detail. The Prime Minister tends to be very frank in private conversation as well as in public. When he talks about parliamentary reform he believes it; I have no doubt about that. I listened with care today when he said that he intended to consider amendments very seriously in the present Parliament, and if I understood the argument he implied that he would lend the government's support, and implement policy along those lines. In that context, therefore, 1 want to talk seriously about Petro-Canada because it concerns me. I am not interested in the paternity aspect. The Leader of the Opposition talked more about the paternity of the institution than about its importance. I would welcome a paternity suit by the Leader of the Opposition any day, and 1 have no doubt about who would win it. It is not paternity that is crucial here; what is crucial is the institution and what it does for our country. What has Petro-Canada done for all our regions during the past year?
First of all, it opened a research centre in Calgary which provided $10 million for Canadian men and women to work on a Canadian resource. That meant Canadian jobs. In the past year it spent $1.5 billion on the purchase of Pacific Petroleums Ltd. This means that Canadians from British Columbia and as far east as Thunder Bay can go to a Canadian-owned petroleum station and know that the money they spend there will stay in Canada. That is important, because in this way the company acquires capital that it can invest to explore for more oil in the north or off the Atlantic coast. It gives the company a cash flow. It is not simply jingoistic nationalism although I, for one, believe we need a little more of that. 1 believe it has an important economic function.
In the east, Petro-Canada is currently involved in 80 per cent of the drillings off the coast of Labrador. It was involved in the strike off the coast of Nova Scotia at Sable Island, and it was involved in the discovery made off Newfoundland about two weeks ago. These are some recent examples of what Petro-Canada has done for our people in different regions.
I want to make the point that just a few years ago, shortly after it was forced upon us by the minority government at Christmas, 1973, the corporation was established with some $500 million in assets. But it has taken that investment and used it to create jobs for Canadians in virtually every part of our land, to find energy resources, and to provide retail outlets for Canadians. Instead of being simply a $500 million loser that the President of the Treasury Board would like to get rid of, that $500 million has been taken and turned into $3.5 billion for the people of Canada. Petro-Canada is the great business success of the decade, and we should be expanding it.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
1 want to provide some arguments for maintaining this corporation as an integrated entity that will continue to serve Canadians. Any resource sector should be developed with two views in mind. First, one should try to maximize the number of Canadian jobs. We should not just export the resource, but develop a secondary industrial strategy based on the resource. Second, an end product should be produced, in this case energy. That is the first reason for maintaining Petro-Canada as it is. It should become part of a totally integrated developed energy sector, Canadian owned and Canadian controlled.
In pursuing the course the government has embarked upon in this area it is going to repeat something done 20 years ago by the last Conservative government, of similar proportions. Twenty years ago the last Conservative government announced that it would kill the Arrow project, this is an interesting parallel. Consider, sir, what was going on 20 years ago. The Arrow was a plane designed and produced by approximately
14,000	Canadians working in the Toronto area. Without question it was the best designed engine of its time. On its test flight it had the best record of any jet of its type anywhere in the world. But the Conservative government of the day decided it was too costly and the project was scrapped. The cost would have been $3.75 million per jet had they continued.
What are the consequences of that decision? First, we bought the Bomarc missile which turned out to be a military dud, quite apart from other considerations. Beyond that, we lost one of the most highly skilled and talented labour work forces in the world. As a result, these people went to the United States and worked on the space program. I am sure they are working now on a lot of the planes we purchase from the United States at five times the original cost of the Arrow.
The lessons to me are important, Mr. Speaker. Some people say that perhaps we could not have done it. At the same time, in 1959, Sweden had the Saab aircraft. As it turned out the Saab was not as good as the Arrow, for technical reasons. However, the Swedish government made a different decision. Up until recently the Swedish government has believed in an industrial strategy, and the current government maintains the same basic policies. Because the Swedish government decided to stay with the Saab aircraft and pursued the industry, that country is now exporting aircraft all over the world. A spin-off has resulted in the automotive industry also called Saab.
Twenty years ago Canada made a decision which resulted in the loss of technicians and of a tremendously exciting aircraft industry in terms of its potential. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we must not make a similar decision now. Just as we could have gone ahead with an imaginative aircraft industry then, we must keep Petro-Canada as the central, integrated, developed petroleum company now. The Prime Minister must not be allowed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with Petro-Canada.
Second, Petro-Canada can ensure that this country gets development when it is needed and at the price we want. In the early 1970s the multinationals went on an exploration strike. They said they were not making enough money. They were

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
unhappy with some provincial governments' royalties and were unhappy with the federal government's tax policies. Petro-Canada filled the bill. Petro-Canada moved into Atlantic Canada and into the Arctic. Important results have ensued.
By breaking up Petro-Canada, what the Prime Minister would be doing would be turning it back into the hands of the multinationals. We would return to a situation where we had to use our own money to pay exorbitant profits to develop our resources. My party and I say that surely the day for that kind of development is past.
The Prime Minister talked about tax incentives for the oil industry in his campaign speeches. If I understood him correctly, he made reference in the throne speech yesterday to the same reality. I say to the Prime Minister, please check the oil industry's profit figures. Under the Liberal administration, we had a tax rate that saw the oil industry, and I am speaking of the "Big 5", make $4 billion in profits between 1974 and 1978. During that time, the tax rate for the oil industry declined from 35 per cent to 21 per cent.


Mr. Woolliams:: Is that in Canada?


John Edward Broadbent: Canadian profits, yes. I say to the hon. member from Alberta that he could probably confirm that rather quickly.
Shell, that poor enterprise, had a profit last year of $150 million. Shell did not pay one cent in taxes. Gulf Oil had fantastic profits, with a declining tax rate. We do not need to give the multinationals in the oil industry any more money. In the United States President Carter recognizes it; why at long last cannot the Government of Canada?
It is important to note in terms of the development intentions of the Prime Minister and his government, as I understand it, that he wants to duplicate, for example, with the Gold Lake project, exactly what is taking place in the Athabasca tar sands development.
I ask you, sir, and the people of Canada to think seriously about this. Taxes of every working Canadian were used, not to provide an investment, not to provide a loan, but to provide a handout to Shell and the others that were working in the Athabasca tar sands. More than $2 billion of Canadian money has been given to Shell and its partners. Talk about welfare and handouts. Some people may say that was necessary and that we will get taxes back later on when profits are made. As 1 stand here, and you sit there, Mr. Speaker, 99 per cent of Canadians do not know that Shell in that project will not have to pay one cent of tax on its profit, providing Shell buys more Canadian resources.
Think of the logic. We are giving them $2 billion to develop our resources. That is not equity, that is a gift I am talking about. When a profit is made from our resources, taxes do not have to be paid if this money is reinvested in Canada. We have to be the only people ever who have financed our own takeover.
If time permits, Mr. Speaker, 1 could say something about the leading multinational in the field, Imperial Oil. It is not a

joking matter. Once again I refer not to social democratic sources but to the New York Times. I ask the Prime Minister to read in that paper how that corporation has behaved in recent years. It tried to get $100 million additional money out of the people of Nova Scotia having already rooked them, and I say that deliberately, because the evidence that was presented at the trial which took place in our land in 1975, and not given much play, was that Imperial Oil, the largest multinational in Canada, indulged in all kinds of nefarious practices, backdating orders, not passing on to Canadian consumers reduced prices they were getting from their parent firm, Exxon, and using a dummy corporation in Bermuda to save some $35 million in taxes that ought to have come to the people of Canada.
That is not mythology. That is not rhetoric. It is fact. It was a decision reached in the Canadian court and reiterated, interestingly enough, in the New York Times. Is that a good corporate citizen? Is that the kind of entity we want to turn our oil industry over to once again? I say not, and I know the majority of Canadians say not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The third reason for maintaining Petro-Canada as an integrated firm is to enable it to negotiate for the people of Canada on a state to state basis. The Prime Minister knows that the government of Venezuela and the government of Mexico, among others, want that. They do not want to work through the multinationals. They want to deal directly with the people of Canada. We want that as well.
We saw last year Exxon attempting to redirect shipments of oil that were intended for our borders. We say that we, like other countries, need a large oil firm owned and controlled by the people of Canada which will deal directly with the oil producing countries and not work through the multinationals.
The final reason I want to give for not simply maintaining Petro-Canada but for extending its operations, is in the retail field. I mentioned earlier that Canadians living from Thunder Bay west can now purchase at the retail outlet level gas for their cars from a Canadian-owned and controlled subsidiary of Petro-Canada, Pacific Petroleums. We believe that principle should be extended. For once give us in the east what they have in the west. Ontarians would like that. Let someone in downtown Toronto, Moncton or St. John's have the right to a credit card with the words Petro-Canada and a little maple leaf on it, which he can use to buy his gas, knowing that all the profit would be reinvested in Canada.
Having made those points in defence of Petro-Canada, and indeed for extending its role, I want to conclude with this observation. It is my strongest conviction that the Conservative party is being dictated to by the purest doctrinaire ideology on the issue. It is as simple but as unfortunate as that. If intelligence prevails, if pragmatism in the national interest prevails, and indeed 1 suspect if the ordinary Conservative backbencher had his way, because the ordinary voter who
October 10, 1979

voted Conservative wants it, we would keep Petro-Canada doing exactly what it is doing in the national interest.
It is my view that the Prime Minister is marching to a non-existent drummer. He is the only guy whistling that tune. The Prime Minister laughs. Consider what other countries of the world are doing in petroleum.
The government of France controls two oil companies in that country. Their aim is to control 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the market in that country. In Italy, the state-owned petroleum company has 30 per cent of the market in that country. The government of Germany is involved in a massive way in a large integrated oil and gas firm that is involved in petrochemicals as well. In the United Kingdom, even with dear old Margaret Thatcher, just two weeks ago the Tories decided not to sell off their shares of the North Sea development, but to keep them. That was reported in The Economist. The Tories there recognized in that instance there is a national interest in public involvement.
The state oil company in Norway is playing a major role in North Sea oil development. In Mexico it is 100 per cent government owned, and in Venezuela 100 per cent government owned. There is the same pattern, the same question of government involvement, in Argentina, Brazil and Peru. Indeed, in the United States of America, the home of most of the multinationals, President Carter in his most recent energy address over television said it is time that country moved toward a public firm in the oil and gas field. 1 repeat, there is one person and one person alone in the world who is out of step in the energy field, and it is our Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We cannot accept the government's intention to break up Petro-Canada and have the private sector get the profit-making part while the public sector holds on to the debt-creating part. There is economic genius! We have a successful public enterprise and the Tory proposal is to give to the private sector the profitable part and keep for Canadians the debts. That does not make sense. Any businessman in the world, including those in Canada, agrees that it does not make sense.
I plead with the Prime Minister to pay attention to his own argument which he made earlier today. I listened with care. He said he will consider amendments and consider this issue seriously. I ask him not only to look at the long range future for Canada in terms of our very serious energy position, but to look around the world. Instead of breaking up Petro-Canada, keep this very remarkable Canadian success story. Encourage it to grow so that one day it will be the dominant firm in the industry.
I am not interested in the paternity suit issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, although 1 would be prepared on another occasion to argue it in detail. 1 have no doubts about who would win.
I spent the last few weeks, as hon. members know, attempting to get an expression of concern from the people of Canada
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
on this issue. I want to tell the Prime Minister that, as of noon today, there were 81,231 signatures in my office. They have been collected over a few weeks. We might have had more or we might have had less. I do not know the ultimate significance of that figure. However, I want the Prime Minister to know they are honest signatures, partly from lawyers, partly from farmers, and partly from members of his own party. These people are very serious about keeping this company. The Gallup poll which came out today showed that 75 per cent of Canadians, in a national survey, agree.
We take our obligation on this issue very seriously. That is why we are joining in a non-confidence vote against the government on this issue. We think it is of fundamental importance not only in the short run but in the long run of this country. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House calls in particular for the corporation to be designated as the sole importer of offshore oil, and for the corporation to open retail outlets to serve the people of Canada from coast to coast."


Mr. Speaker:: The question is upon the amendment to the amendment. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are about to live an historical moment in the history of our country. In my point of order, I would like to seek the understanding of all members. For many years now it has been the custom in our institution, during the throne speech debate, to allow the leaders of all political groups in the House to make their speeches right after the speeches from the movers.
I do not understand why, a moment ago, the Chair failed to recognize the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) who is sitting for the first time in this parliament, a man who was elected in his riding with a sweeping majority and who therefore represents sensible people, Canadians who trust he will work in the House along with all other hon. members and all political groups towards the healthy administration of the country. Yesterday 1 considered, and I still consider today, that it was our privilege to introduce an amendment to a motion moved by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). I understand that it is an amendment to a motion and that the House voted on this amendment. I do not see how it could have changed the tradition of the House. So why does that happen on the second day?
Yesterday we talked about achieving some sort of harmony in the House. All members who took the floor yesterday did allude to that. Personally, I am in favour of harmony but it cannot be achieved unless all Canadians and all members of

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
the House show some good will. Harmony is a sign of prosperity, division a sign of misfortune. It is always unfortunate to be divided, and all Canadians are watching us today. They are watching television. The broadcasting of the debates is certainly an advantage. It helps Canadians understand our speeches without having to resort to other media. Sometimes the facts were distorted, sometimes not. But, Mr. Speaker, the House was mainly interested in respecting its tradition instead of going by the standing orders. We tried to be reasonable. Decisions were rendered which were wise. Often the Chair availed itself of decisions rendered by previous Speakers.
Today, however, with all due respect to the Chair, I should like to recall a decision which Speaker Lamoureux rendered in this House some 13 years ago, more specifically on February 18, 1966, in a situation similar to this one and where Speaker Lamoureux stated in part:
Order, please. Perhaps this might be a good moment for the Chair to unburden itself of a very weighty opinion prepared following the discussion in the house on Tuesday, February 15, when hon. members were invited to argue the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cumberland.
The Chair undertook to give a decision after considering the arguments submitted. I can assure hon. members that 1 have studied most carefully the several views expressed by those who participated in the discussion on the point of order.
As hon. members know, it has been the practice for some years that when a minister of the Crown makes an announcement or a statement of government policy on motions, a spokesman for each of the parties in opposition of the government may comment briefly.
Beauchesne refers to this practice in citation 91 of his fourth edition. On February 1, 1954, Mr. Speaker Beaudoin stated that it was the practice of the house, when a minister makes a statement, to allow one spokesman for each opposition party to make observations, and he referred to a ruling in that regard made by his predecessor, Mr. Speaker Macdonald, on June 4, 1951.
That confirms what I was saying earlier.
Last year, that practice was incorporated in our standing orders and now constitutes provisional Standing Order 15(2) which says in essence:
On motions listed in section (2) of this Standing Order, a minister of the Crown may make an announcement or statement on government policy. That kind of announcement or statement should be limited to the fact that it is thought necessary to bring it to the attention of the Flouse. It should not be designed to bring about a debate at that stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition may make brief comments subject to the same restriction.
Closer to us, in 1963, an amendment was made to the Senate and House of Commons Act which reads as follows:
It was to pay a supplementary allowance to party leaders, but that is not the point. It was suggested that provisional Standing Order 15(2) should not be interpreted in the light of the 1963 amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act and that the Speaker should use that amendment as a guideline for the procedure to be followed on the matter of comments on minister's statements, and all the more, at the time of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. However, we must not forget the following principle of parliamentary procedure as provided in citation 8(3) of the fourth edition of Beauchesne.
(3) "In the interpretation of the rules or standing orders the House is generally guided, not so much by the literal construction of the orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been the practice of the House with respect to them."
We must not forget that after the 1963 amendments to the Senate and House of Commons Act, the House agreed to Standing Order 2, and the same year that this standing order was approved, the House decided, and I would like hon. members to listen to the decision of Speaker Lamoureux. The House allowed the hon. member for Red Deer to comment on the statements of ministers even though at that time his party had fewer members than the number provided in the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act. The Speaker said that in view of the precedents, he could not see how he could conclude that Standing Order 15(2) should be interpreted according to the amendment to the said act.
Moreover, the Speaker did not believe that it would be reasonable to conclude that independent members are covered by Standing Order 15(2). He did not believe either that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who had taken part in the debate, should be considered as such. But as long-and this is what the Chair wanted to draw to the attention of the House-as long as the House does not amend the Standing Order concerning statements by ministers to define better the right to comment on such statements, the Speaker believed that he should follow the practice established during the last session and state that the standing orders authorize the Leader of the Official Opposition and the spokesmen for the New Democratic Party, the Ralliement Creditiste and the Social Credit Party of Canada to comment on statements by ministers.
At the time of that decision, there was a division in the party and the Ralliement Creditiste had nine members. The Social Credit Party of Canada, led by Mr. Thompson, member of Parliament for Red Deer, counted five members.
The Speaker decided, however, to recognize that group of five, pursuant to the Standing Orders, and to give them the same privileges, the same right as to those who had nine, fifteen or a hundred members. I should not like to be racist, but the Speaker who recognized those legitimate rights to an English-speaking group was a Francophone. Today the roles have changed. In order to avoid useless frictions, let us think seriously that we are members from the province of Quebec, but Quebec is part of Canada and I want it to remain so. That is why we shall need harmony and-


An hon. Member:: You are not the only one.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Indeed not, but I am an individual among others, just as you yourself are only an individual among others.


An hon. Member:: We were elected.

October 10, 1979


An hon. Member:: I was not elected as an independent, but as a Social Crediter.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The hon. member has just given me an opening. All members of the House have been elected on May 22 by means of a ballot cast by the electors. They had the choice between candidates from various parties, and after the candidate's name appeared the name of his party. This is done under an act of Parliament, and the electoral act is the same for all political parties and for all Canadians. So, with all due respect, I ask that this Parliament show that we really want harmony.
As 1 said at the beginning of my remarks, today is a memorable day, and if the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) is to be denied the right to take part in the debate as has always been done in the past at this stage, well, it will be a blunder, a most unfortunate blunder at a time when efforts are being made across Canada to maintain harmony in this country, to work at its further development in order that our children may inherit a good country to live in. We should not get out of our way to irk and make things easier for those who are committed to its destruction.
This is a very serious situation and it will be interpreted according to decision made today. 1 respectfully ask all my colleagues in this House, 1 ask the Chair, on the basis of the points I made, on the basis of the decision and the tradition in Parliament, that the hon. member for Beauce be allowed to express his views pursuant to past tradition. In so doing, we can rest assured of one thing, which is that Parliament will come out stronger from this mix-up, and every Canadian will perceive us as responsible people.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) raised a point of order, and of course he has been heard by the Chair this afternoon.
I totally agree with him about precedent. I weighed carefully the specific precedents he very aptly used in support of his position in this House this afternoon. However, the difficulty 1 find is not simply that of considering precedent on this occasion. A vote was taken yesterday in the House; a formal decision issued from the House, and there has been not only a decision on a procedural motion, but also a specific statement by the President of the Privy Council, a specific statement by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, and finally a specific statement in yesterday's Hansard, the wording of which I have before me: specific statements on the motion concerning the present position of the Social Credit Party of Canada in the House. So, whatever the precedents, I must always accept the decision made by the House. 1 think it would be contrary to its decision and would definitely reverse the consensus reached yesterday.
It is for that reason that 1 did not give the floor, this afternoon, during the question period, to the hon. member for Beauce immediately after the Leader of the New Democratic
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
Party had spoken but later. I wanted to demonstrate clearly that it was still the privilege and the right of every member of this House to take part in the debate. And it is not just a matter of privilege but the right of the hon. member for Beauce or the hon. member for Bellechasse to take part in discussions during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
It is the right of every member. Of course, there are some numerical restrictions. But it is the right of every member to take part in the debate. So, tomorrow, perhaps after some other members have spoken, I think that the hon. member for Beauce will have the right, as any other member, to participate in the debate. That is why this afternoon I gave the floor to the hon. member for Beauce during the question period, as a member of the House like any other member, but not as a party leader.
As far as the consensus reached in this House yesterday is concerned, 1 could not reverse it and give the Social Credit Party of Canada a status in the House which it has been denied by a formal decision and not only on a matter of procedure but by a decision which is phrased as follows, and I quote the President of Privy Council:
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the discussion in the House, but 1 do say that there is here an important matter of principle at stake. The original motion was framed with that in mind. The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have set out, I believe, the principles quite clearly. They do not need to be repeated. In that sense it is clear as the government House leader that I ought to indicate to the House that, based on the principle that is involved, we do not intend to support the amendment.
I should like to repeat the representations made by two other members. In the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he said the following:
If we take a vote today, and the consensus seems to be that this motion will be defeated, then you, sir, will have the decision of the House that on the first occasion when the issue was raised it was felt that we should not give to five members the status of a party.
In the language of the opposition House leader, he said:
It is obvious that if there had been included in the motion a member of the Social Credit group, that would carry with it the implication that in the House of Commons, if it did approve that motion, that group would enjoy a status, particularly the leader of that group, equivalent in standing to that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
We do not, of course, accept the proposition-
The declarations were very specific. My difficulty is not with the precedents quoted by the hon. member. My difficulty is that on those declarations I cannot regard that decision as any other kind of decision. I can speculate, together with the other hon. members who participated in the discussion, that had a vote not been taken yesterday possibly the precedents the hon. member was arguing today would have left me in a position to accept his argument today. I do not know. But I am faced with a fait accompli and a decision of the House.

October 10, 1979
The Address-Mr. Broad bent
Therefore I have to indicate that the decision is no longer mine. The decision was that of the House, and it was clearly taken yesterday. Therefore while I have every intention-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While I have every intention of recognizing-

-the hon. member for Beauce maybe tomorrow, it is now, 1 think, the turn of a government member since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) spoke first, then the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and finally the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), an opposition member. A government member will now have the floor. That is why I recognized the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to raise a question of privilege since I am the one concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauce on a point of order.


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I was the mover of yesterday's motion and 1 do not want to discuss again the decision of the House. The motion that was moved yesterday did not seek in any way the acknowledgement of our party. There was no such intention in it and maybe it should be read again in the House. The motion dealt exclusively with the standing orders governing the proceedings of the House, which have been accepted by members who have sat in this House long before me and to which there should be no exception except by unanimous consent. This tradition prevails not only in this Parliament but in all parliaments of British tradition. We are ruled not only by the standing orders but by tradition as well.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who stands as the conscience of this Parliament-at least that is the reputation he has-since he is an expert on parliamentary procedure, did not remind all my colleagues that in 1958, at which time there was a Progressive Conservative government with 208 hon. members-it then held the majority-there were only eight CCF members, there was a CCF member on yesterday's famous committee, and the House accepted the suggestion unanimously. Mr. Hazen Argue was the chairman of the committee, the first to be appointed by Mr. John Diefenbaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thought there was room for gentlemanliness in this Parliament. I examined the precedents in this House. I would be the first party leader ever to sit in this House to whom would be denied the right to speak, to reply to the Speech from the Throne, after the spokesmen for the other parties. Mr. Speaker, as precedents govern future relations between parliamentarians, the precedent which may be created today runs the risk of suggesting a line of conduct to be
[Mr. Speaker.)
followed by those who will sit after you in the Speaker's chair. The matter is extremely serious. In 1963-64, Robert Thompson, leader of a five-member party, was allowed to speak. Why? Because our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker-and I shall close on these words-because the standing orders which govern the business of the House of Commons do not define the status of the parties that are recognized or otherwise. There is absolutely nothing in our rules on that question. The only thing that governs those rulings is tradition, precedents. I have always been told that parliamentary tradition was something sacred to our Anglophone fellow-citizens. That is what I have always heard.
So, I am surprised to realize that today, despite the mandate given to us by our electors, there should be some kind of complicity between both sides of the House in attempting to have us sit as independents. With all due deference to our political adversaries, and anyone else, Mr. Speaker, we will not sit as independents. We were elected as members of the Social Credit Party of Canada. 1 took on the responsibility of leading that party and I intend to assume it fully. That is why I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to postpone your ruling for tonight. Sleep on it, as the old saying goes. There are three minutes left before six, so it is too late for me to make my speech tonight. If it is permissible to think aloud even in this House, 1 think that if the idea was to prevent us from taking the floor tonight it has been successful indeed.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you sincerely, taking into account the seriousness of the issue at stake and what I said yesterday and repeat again today, namely the fact that more ballots have been cast for us than for all members in six provinces, why is it that they enjoy a different status at this moment of our history when more and more people ponder on the future of this country? Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot emphasize enough the significance of the decision you must take and how heavy the consequences. That is why, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I urge you to give it serious consideration and let us know tomorrow morning the decision you will have reached in your wisdom.
[ English ]


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I was concerned yesterday and I am concerned today with the decision made in a very roundabout manner concerning the matter of the status of the Social Credit party. I think I can safely say, probably being on the extreme left and they being on the extreme right, that there is no philosophical reason for my defence. Over the years I have looked at the changes made in the party structure here, most of them having been done in a roundabout manner.
Yesterday we had a motion which affected Standing Order 65, one very specific position. A decision was made which meant the Social Credit has no right to have a member on the striking committee. That was the decision. I object to us expanding that to making the decision Social Credit is no longer a party of this House but its members are now
October 10, 1979

Independents. If we want to make that decision, let the hon. House leader (Mr. Baker) make the motion. I am bothered with the fact that it may happen to me some day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: We were here when there were 208 Tories and only eight members of the CCF. We had some difficulty in establishing our position, not as the opposition, but as the Official Opposition. The Liberals of that day knew that the government would defeat itself and they very smartly just waited. We in the CCF were not that smart and we were too small a group to have that luxury, so we fought very hard for the position as a political party and a role in the opposition. That was not an unfortunate role and we now have 31 members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


William Arnold Peters: I must have been thinking of some of the byelections that are coming along.
I sincerely believe that the members of this House do not want to make a decision that will deprive a number of members of the opportunity and rights of being a political party under whose banner they campaigned and were elected.
We, as members of this House, may decide who sits on a committee. We may make that decision from time to time, and the circumstances may vary. It may be that we do not want a member of the Social Credit party to respond or reply to motions. If that is the case, let us say so.
Ever since that list was delivered to you, Mr. Speaker, by all political parties, it has been of concern to me, because it has elevated political parties and members thereof to positions to which they were not elected. 1 think we have arrived at a stage where there are political parties when it suits the majority, and individuals when it does not suit that majority. 1 suggest we would be very unfair to take from the Social Credit members that right to belong to a political party, under whose banner they were elected as members, by the process of a majority without the benefit of a motion and without the benefit of any real discussion or debate. 1 think we should not do that under the guise of having made a decision on another matter.
I have sometimes made statements in speeches that I was happy afterward to have rejected. Just because one makes
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
statements during an argument does not necessarily make those statements right. I suggest with all due respect that the decision made yesterday was a decision regarding membership of a Social Credit member on the striking committee, and that is all. That decision was not taken in respect of a party, it was taken in respect of an individual.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) has left a question of privilege with me and has asked that I consider it overnight. I would simply reiterate what I have said. I will consider his question of privilege carefully overnight. I have already decided on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
My difficulty lies in the fact that a decision has been taken by the House. It seems to me that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would have me brush aside the validity of the House and come to some other conclusion in the face of the clear position I quoted this afternoon. That decision was more than a simple reflection of the matter involved in the motion concerning the membership of the committee. That was a decision clearly taken by the House and 1 cannot ignore its very clear content.
Let me also say this. Indeed, the House has ways of dealing with these situations. Let me leave an example. Had the hon. member for Beauce been the only member standing 30 minutes ago, he would have been recognized and it would not have been clear whether he was being recognized as a party leader or not. These are devices the House knows well, and can use.
The House, by consent, can do a number of things to oblige or accommodate members at different times. If the House wishes to do something, it has a perfect right within its power to do so. However, I am a servant of the House and the House made a clear decision yesterday. In my opinion I no longer have any choice in the matter. The House may have another choice and may do some other things, but, in the absence of any clear direction by the House on the subject, I have to be bound by yesterday's decision, which, in my opinion, stands directly between me and the precedents the hon. member cited this afternoon.
However, I did say I will give the member's question of privilege consideration overnight and 1 will do so.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 11, 1979