1980-04-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that it seems likely the United States Senate may not ratify the Canada-United States east coast fishing treaty, and in view of the importance of this treaty to maritime fishermen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House directs the Secretary of Slate for External Affairs to immediately get in touch with his United States counterpart to impress upon him the importance that Canada places on the early ratification of this treaty.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on an urgent and pressing matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the very serious state of the automobile industry in this country, as reflected by recent actions, including massive lay-offs and statements concerning the operations of the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, and Chrysler Canada Ltd., and in view of the imminence of a decision on the request for government financial assistance by Chrysler Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this House immediately order its Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to be set up, and the committee commence an immediate review of the state of the automobile industry in Canada and the request for government financial assistance by Chrysler Canada Ltd., as well as an over-all review of the obsolete and inadequate auto pact.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I would propose a motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the representations made during the recent election campaign by Liberal candidates in the national capital area, that employees of the public service of Canada who were laid off would be reinstated and/or retrained, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the President of the Treasury Board reconsider his position that the Government of Canada has no responsibility for its employees, and take such steps as are necessary to extend the priority status of laid off employees, as requested by the Economists, Sociologists and Statisticians Association.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker,
1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity according to Standing Order 43. Considering that the killer mineral, asbestos, is causing lung cancer in thousands of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead):
That this House call on the Minister of Public Works to remove or seal in federally-owned public buildings all asbestos used as insulation, fireproofing, soundproofing, or acoustics, which is flaking, crumbling, or damaged in any way, increasing asbestos dust in the air.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

April 16, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the Elouse to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Because in the course of the current constitutional debate the Francophones outside Quebec stand a chance of being overlooked, and because the former secretary of state, Mr. David MacDonald, had ratified an agreement providing for the setting up of a joint commission of the federal government and the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request the present Secretary of State to reaffirm that agreement.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE PURSUED WITH QUEBEC ON USE OF MIRABEL FARMLAND-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joiiette):: Madam Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, 1 request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the Quebec government and the former Progressive Conservative government had started negotiations with a view to allowing the Quebec government to put to use for farming purposes the land now standing idle at Mirabel-I think all Quebeckers will agree with me-and as the new government intends to adopt a more receptive attitude towards provincial objectives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provench-er (Mr. Epp):
That this House unanimously urge the responsible minister to pursue the negotiations as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Air service in northern Canada is inadequate and unreliable, and runways are often only long enough to accommodate the smaller planes which are more expensive to run than in other parts of the country. I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Transport undertake a full review of air transportation services in the north, including a review of the Arctic airport facilities policy.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Do I have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), I move:
That this House unanimously acclaim the new country of Zimbabwe, which will officially come into being as the forty-ninth country of Africa in a few hours time.
I further move:
That this House unanimously congratulate and send best wishes to Robert Mugabe that his new country, with our support, will have long years of peace and prosperity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
April 16, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Knowles:: Who said "No"?


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to table in the House the annual report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the year ending March 31, 1979.
1 remind hon. members that under Standing Order 65(1 )(g) this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF RIGHT HON. EDWARD HEATH, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OFTHE UNITED KINGDOM
Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of the Right Hon. Edward Heath, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whom we thank for his visit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I would like to give notice of a question of privilege involving the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) which I will be raising at the end of the question period.
OraI Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister: it has to do with his reply yesterday when he was asked about his government's position with regard to support for the Olympic boycott.
Given his confused reply, which subsequently had to be twice clarified, not only by his own office but by the Department of External Affairs-and, 1 may say, neither time very successfully-a reply in which he indicated at one point opposition to the boycott, and then went on to say that at the same time he had written to President Carter indicating that he would support him in the measures announced-which, I presume, included the Olympic boycott-will the Prime Minister now say clearly and precisely whether or not he supports a boycott of the Olympic Games?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the department, once again, had to clear up the confusion in the hon. lady's mind.


Miss MacDonald:: They had to clear up your confusion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My answer was that I had written President Carter in answer to a letter he had written to me indicating some further measures, which was made clear in a press release issued by my office about ten days ago after President Carter's letter had been received. In my answer, I indicated that indeed we were approving the various measures that he was taking in a general sense, and 1 indicated certain steps that we ourselves are contemplating.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, of course, has not answered the question as to whether or not he and his government are supporting an Olympic boycott, which he seemed to indicate yesterday when he said he had written to President Carter in that regard. Perhaps he would like to re-read what he said. The Prime Minister has said on other occasions that he thinks such a boycott can only be effective if it is widely supported.
Given the fact that some 33 countries have now publicly indicated their support for a boycott, and that includes countries from Africa, Latin America, Central America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, East Asia, Europe and North America, seeing that 33 countries have publicly advocated a boycott and 20 others have privately advocated that to the State Department, whereas only 27 have publicly stated they are against it, will the Prime Minister now say when he thinks that Canada should take a stand on this issue?


Mr. Crosbie:: Come on, Pierre. Come on, old slippery shoes.
62

April 16, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Madam Speaker, I want to explain once again that in this particular letter, President Carter did not raise the question of the boycott with me. He was raising-and this was made public at the time-the further steps that the United States were contemplating since there had been no recent movement in the Tehran situation. It is these recent steps that I was commenting upon in my answer to him.
Regarding the earlier question of the boycott, I made my position clear in the House yesterday, and 1 made it clear during the campaign. The boycott, in itself, will only be useful if it serves to show the Soviet Union and the Soviet people that there is, indeed, widespread condemnation of their invasion of Afghanistan.


An hon. Member:: Do you condemn it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That will only follow, Madam Speaker, if the boycott question is handled in such a way that it does not show division in the western ranks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Resign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and, particularly, it does not indicate that the 104 nations which condemned the Soviet invasion in January at the United Nations do not seem able to continue that thrust of condemnation. It is to that end that we have been working, and are working now, Madam Speaker, to increase the number of people who would, together, pose some collective action.


Mr. Andre:: Boycott, or not?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Given that the government had said that its new foreign policy was supposedly an active foreign policy, and yet we see no new initiatives-in fact, our allies do not know where we stand vis-a-vis Iran or Afghanistan these days-is the Prime Minister now saying that he is going to wait until after 104 nations have had their say, and that Canada will be the 105th? Or will he, now that 57 countries have declared their opposition to the games in Moscow, please state where Canada stands? Will he at least do that prior to the time Secretary Vance comes here next week to consult on this question, since I am sure he already knows the point of view of the United States on this very important question?


John Carnell Crosbie: Get your courage up, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I am afraid it is not realistic to hope that 104 nations will join in this collective action on the boycott. I think that perhaps more of them might have done so if the government to which the hon. member belonged had not made these very brave ultimata to the Soviet Union that they must be out by February 20 or else they would see what they would see. I think it should be obvious even to the former hon. minister of finance that this ultimatum-


An hon. Member:: How would you have handled Munich?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -by his government has not had much effect on the Soviet Union.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is better than your pusillanimous behaviour.


U.S. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST I RAN-ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister avoids answering the question of my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Yesterday he was clearly confused with respect to the sanctions against Iran and the invasion of Afghanistan, in his confused answer.
I want to ask him today specifically whether or not the Prime Minister and the government endorse the economic sanctions against Iran as proposed by President Carter, as was done by our government, the previous government, before the Security Council on December 30, 1979? Does this government endorse those particular proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, very early in the election campaign I indicated that the actions of the then Canadian government had my support.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I recall very clearly-as 1 am sure many members of this House do-the statements made by the Prime Minister before and during the election campaign. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he has taken any bold initiatives with respect to Iran, as he urged on our government-particularly about getting on the phone within 24 hours-and whether he has spoken to President Carter. Also, has he spoken to the other members of the summit, led the way in getting sanctions and taken steps and initiatives with respect to the hostages in Tehran, or is he just sitting around and waiting until all the other nations go first and then he can come along?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the actions 1 have taken have not been bold, in the sense of those of the hon. member's party, who used them very boldly during the election campaign. But I have taken steps, and indeed our foreign minister is in Zimbabwe today following up on those steps and trying to get a little larger support for whatever action we take to condemn the invasion than the hon. member's government managed to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is referring to the invasion of Afghanistan, I am talking about Iran. It is next to Iraq, and it is next to Afghanistan. It is a different country.
I ask the Prime Minister whether or not-he has made reference to these letters and communications with President Carter-he will now table those documents in the House of Commons. He has made reference to them. He is required
April 16, 1980

under the rules of the House of Commons to table these documents. Will he do that, so the people of Canada can see what he is doing, if he will not tell us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I knew, once again, that the kind of bold action that the hon. member describes is not the kind that I would be able to follow up. I do not believe in trying to make political yards with this. I try and get-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Even MacEachen is smiling at that one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 find it more important to take effective action, and that is what we are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's insensitive statement yesterday that most Canadians can afford a home, and only a small number of home owners need help because of high interest rates, and since at least 32,000 home owners face foreclosure or must pay increased interest rates well in excess of 30 per cent of their income, will the minister take steps to ensure that mortgages renewed in 1980 remain frozen at their existing rate for at least one year?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I cannot give that assurance to the hon. member. There is no way that it would be possible for the government to freeze interest rates in these circumstances, or in accordance with the irresponsible suggestion contained in the amendment moved by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
What we are attempting to do-and this ought to give some comfort to the hon. member-is ensure that home owners renegotiating their mortgages in this period of very high interest rates will be able, through techniques we are considering, to continue their payments and to maintain ownership of their homes. That seems to me to be a very sensitive approach to a critical problem.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I think the minister does not recall, but I believe in 1965 there were such controls.
Oral Questions


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Since new housing starts are down dramatically, while rents for about four million tenants are skyrocketing, and many pensioners and women raising families on their own are paying up to 60 per cent of their incomes on rent, and since the greatest housing need in Canada is to increase non-profit housing to lease to tenants who are earning less than $30,000 per year, will the minister responsible for CMHC tell this House how many requests for non-profit and co-op housing were refused CMHC funding this year; and will he confirm that allocations will be increased for this kind of housing?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I recognize the difficulties expressed by the hon. member opposite. I will need some time to get the specifics. However, I am pleased to say that we are aware that there are a number of demands. They seem to be numerous. 1 will report to the hon. member on the exact number when 1 have the opportunity, I expect tomorrow.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Serge Joyal (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that the Speech from the Throne read by His Excellency the Governor General restates the government's undertaking to grant a monthly increase of $35 to persons receiving the income supplement, could the minister tell the members of this House whether she intends to meet her provincial counterparts so that this time, once the House has approved the increase, the provinces will not take it back from the elderly, especially those who live in senior citizens' homes?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to admit that there is such a problem which deeply concerned the members who were in the House two years ago. A week or ten days ago, I believe, I wrote to each of my provincial counterparts to make sure it would not happen again, if possible, and I asked them specifically to increase the allowance given as pocket money to senior citizens who receive the supplement and live in such homes, that is, almost 10 per cent of all senior citizens. For example, I know that if Quebec were to act as it did last time, it would be taking $6 or 7 million from older people.

April 16, 1980
64____ _	____
Oral Questions


REDUCTION OF OIL IMPORTS-EFFECT ON ENERGY PRICES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, who last fall had a tiger in his tank when it came to foreign affairs: now he has not even got a pussycat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: At the summit meeting last June in Tokyo, which the Prime Minister missed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -the real prime minister agreed that Canada would reduce its annual average rate of growth of oil consumption to 1 per cent by the year 1985, with the consequent reduction of oil imports by 50,000 barrels per day. That did not imply any agreement on oil prices.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to keep to this commitment. If so, how is he going to keep to that commitment in view of his policy announced during the election campaign in connection with the oil situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that at the next summit held in Venice the energy issue will be discussed at length and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and myself are preparing the Canadian position on the matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the question 1 asked the Prime Minister was whether he was going to honour the commitment given by Canada at the summit meeting of last June with reference to our position on reducing oil imports by the year 1985.
Is the Prime Minister saying that he is not going to observe that commitment, that he and his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are going to make some different commitment. Furthermore, what is the Prime Minister going to do about the thousands of Americans who are coming into Canada to buy gasoline, saving $17.40 a barrel provided by way of subsidy by the Canadian taxpayer? When is he going to do something about that? How about an answer on both of those? What is his policy?
[ Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that this government will not promise to repeat all the promises the previous government had made here and there. The Clark government itself had to renege on several of its promises. The one about Jerusalem is a case in point.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment. Would the minister assure this House and western Canada that the infrastructure funds for development of the Ridley Island grain port in Prince Rupert will be made available at levels acceptable to an immediate go-ahead, thereby removing all existing uncertainties.
As I am sure the minister appreciates, grain farmers and producers in the western provinces view this development as crucial, because every day of delay is costing them and Canada millions of dollars.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can do that. My generous predecessor committed $42.5 million to that objective. As is well known, however, some of that money was to come from the governments of British Columbia and Alberta. I had to ensure that it was still there unconditionally. It is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What about Saskatchewan?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I invited the government of Saskatchewan as sympathetically as I could to contemplate making a similar contribution. The question of the wharf never having been cleared up-I think that is true-I informed the consortium that the wharf would be on a cost-recovery basis.
It can therefore be seen that I am trying to put together all the loose ends. I am convinced the project will go ahead, and I am dedicating myself fully to that objective.


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps the minister will give an unequivocal yes or no as to whether or not the funds for the infrastructure costs will be in place before the end of this month.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I wish to ask the Prime Minister this question, in view of the very disturbing reports coming out of Washington that the U.S. Senate may not ratify the Canada-U.S. fishing treaty which is so important to the Atlantic provinces, and in view of the fact that two months ago there seemed to be a disposition on the part of senior U.S. congressmen, as well as Senator Church, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, to get on with ratification of this treaty, 1 wish to ask the Prime Minister what steps the government took to take advantage of the good will that existed there at that time, in order to
April 16, 1980

impress upon the U.S. government the importance to Canada of ratification of this important treaty.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was very distressed indeed to realize that ratification of the treaty was somewhat in doubt. The hon. member will recall that it was a previous Liberal government which put that treaty in place and negotiated it. I was somewhat disturbed to learn that so little had been done by the Conservative administration to follow up on that treaty.


James Aloysius McGrath: My supplementary question to the Prime Minister is this: In view of the fact that the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty could have very serious consequences on the east coast fishery, especially the very important scallop fishery, and in view of the fact my colleague, the former secretary of state for external affairs, made representations to Cyrus Vance and Senator Church, I ask the Prime Minister why this government failed to impress upon the U.S. government, at a time when there was good will there toward us, the importance of this treaty to Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure you recognize the element of rhetoric contained in that question. We negotiated the treaty; we signed it; we were ready to implement it. When we left the office of government, the United States were well disposed. Something must have happened during the Tory six months to cause this indisposition, and we are going to try to correct it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Resign.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Trade): it has to do with our business dealings with Iran. Can the minister indicate the current status of Export Development Corporation loans to Iran? Can he indicate if any of these loans are currently in default?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State, Trade):: Madam Speaker, at the present time there are about $125 million in loans outstanding through EDC. I am not aware at the present time if any of them are in default.


Harvie Andre: I realize the minister may have difficulty figuring out the policy of his government toward Iran. Can he advise the House what instructions he has given to the Export Development Corporation? For example, has he instructed them to cease disbursing any further funds in addition to the $125 million in loan commitments that are outstanding?
Oral Questions


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has stated that our policy with regard to Iran will be announced within a week.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Would the hon. gentleman confirm whether it is correct that over 100 members of the RCMP have formed an association to establish collective bargaining in the force, due to dissatisfaction with salaries and grievance procedures? If so, what response is being made by the minister and the government to this initiative?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have given a lot of thought to grievances within the RCMP. It is quite true there has been the formation of this collective bargaining association. I am giving it consideration because there has been within the ministry for a number of years an RCMP act in revision and under consideration. I have made this a top priority. That act contains grievance procedures. It was in the Speech from the Throne, and I hope to be able to bring it forward soon. 1 hope the members of the force will try to live with it and give it a chance before they consider abandoning it and seeking some other way of resolving grievances.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, would the Solicitor General confirm whether it is correct that a larger number than average are now quitting the force due to low morale and dissatisfaction with working conditions?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, no, I do not believe that is the case. There is a report in the papers today to the effect that a larger number than average are quitting in the province of Alberta. That is a fact; I have checked it. But the reason seems to be economic conditions in Alberta, rather than any particular problems with grievance procedures in that province.


AMENDMENTS TO ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, now that the Speech from the Throne has indicated that the Solicitor General is proceeding with those amendments to the RCMP legislation which were prepared for him by the previous government, would he tell us why on March 9 he indicated that he did not intend to proceed with those amendments?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is referring to. I have never said we will not be proceeding with them. We are proceeding

April 16, 1980
Oral Questions
with them. 1 have made some important changes to them and I shall be bringing them before cabinet shortly. Members of the RCMP themselves, along with members of the House, will have an opportunity to consider them soon. Basically, they implement the recommendations of the Marin commission, but they are updated so as to take some current circumstances into consideration.


GRIEVANCES OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF FORCE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker,
I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. In light of his previous remarks, is he prepared to review sympathetically some of the outstanding grievances which have existed with respect to particular members of the force, including people such as McCleery, Brunet and a member of the force called Danch who did not have his court costs paid, despite the fact that he was successful in the Federal Court. Is the minister prepared to review these matters sympathetically?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am prepared to review sympathetically any matter an hon. member wishes to bring to my attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the contract between the government of Ontario and the Ford Motor Company-which was negotiated concurrently with the contract between the federal government and the Ford Motor Company-was tabled yesterday in the Ontario legislature and contains no clause which in any way gives Ford the right to restrict making public the terms of the contract, does the minister stand by his statement of yesterday that such a clause exists in the federal contract and, if so, why is it there?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I understand that a telex confirming Ford has agreed to the release of the agreement on the Essex engine plant is on the way. I am having the contract translated so that it may be available to the House in both official languages, and I hope to be able to table it tomorrow.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I assume the minister is familiar with the terms of the contract, since he has indicated he has studied it frequently. Is he prepared to tell the House what terms there are in that contract which guarantee the jobs in the province of Ontario which were supposedly guaranteed at the time the $68 million was extended to Ford?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my review of the contract indicates that the commitments contained in it related to the building, operating and equipment of the new Essex plant. However, at the time it was entered into, it was the expectation of everyone that those activities would be in addition to activities at the existing Ford facilities.
This has been confirmed by statements of the president of Ford of Canada himself, and this is why I am seeking a meeting as soon as possible with the heads of the parent company, as well as of the Canadian subsidiary, in order to urge them to reverse the decision announced yesterday with respect to the casting plant and to the lay-offs at Oakville.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the past year, the Department of External Affairs and CIDA prepared two position papers outlining the major trends in international affairs to which Canada will have to respond in the 1980s. These papers were intended to be a base for a parliamentary review of Canada's foreign policy.
It is the intention of the government to release these objective, professional papers and provide a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, so that it may proceed with such a study?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the particular content of those papers, but I will take the question as notice and discuss it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, can I infer from the Prime Minister's response that he is in favour, in principle, of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence conducting public hearings, and proceeding with such a study, allowing input from Canadians, particularly those who are interested in a constructive and vigorous foreign policy for Canada in the 1980s?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 have explained to the hon. member that I did not know the content of these papers, and I cannot assure him in advance that I shall make public all the papers which were prepared while his party was in power. I suggest that the hon. member himself would be opposed to that.
| English ]


REVIEW OF ROLES OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minis-
April 16, 1980

ter. We have heard since the election from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as from the Minister of National Defence, that they do not believe reviews of their respective roles are required at this time. Does that represent government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the subject was not discussed in cabinet, to my knowledge, but by way of a general answer I would say that 1 am in agreement with what the ministers are reported to have said. We do not see a need for extensive and fundamental reviews of those two areas of government activity.
Such reviews were undertaken, as the hon. member will recall, in the late 1960s. They were subject to some criticism by the public and, indeed, by the opposition at that time, on the grounds that rather than acting, we were studying. It is our intention in this case to act, because our studies have already been completed.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about Iran?


VEHICLE OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it relates to the grave difficulties which the government of Jamaica is currently experiencing in its financial dealings as a result of a recent conflict with the International Monetary Fund.
In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question to the Prime Minister is this: In view of the fact that Canada has been expected to contribute an urgently needed $8 million U.S. to a World Bank program giving balance of payments support to Caribbean countries, including Jamaica, can the right hon. gentleman assure the House that this needed Canadian assistance will be made available through the World Bank, and that other official Canadian aid programs will not be hampered by this financing crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs for an update on this subject. As of a couple of weeks ago, I know there was an exchange between the government of Jamaica and the Government of Canada. The last communication of which I was made aware was from the government of Jamaica, indicating that there had been a rejection of the IMF approach and consequently it was asking us to hold back on any action for the time being.


Robert Joseph Ogle: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister: it is of a slightly different nature. Considering that needed Canadian equipment produced for the use of Alcan in Jamaica, which they need and want, is now ready for shipment and is reportedly being delayed because of the IMF decision, will the Government of Canada take supportive action to
Oral Questions
ensure that such shipments are proceeded with as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be happy to take notice of the question.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that on previous occasions, former Liberal immigration ministers have refused to issue ministerial permits permitting Timothy Leary entry into this country, what new circumstances presently exist whereby Mr. Leary has been given a ministerial permit, especially in light of the fact that one of the purposes of Mr. Leary's visit was to give his first Canadian commercial performance at a Winnipeg hotel in which the minister and his brother have a financial interest? Does this not constitute a conflict of interest, in which case the minister ought to consider his resignation?


Some hon. Members:: Shame on you.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member has raised that question, because he has been guilty in the past week of issuing a number of public charges based on totally erroneous information which he has now repeated in this House. Let me point out to the hon. member, first, and to other members of the chamber, that it is not the purpose of the Immigration Act to provide for censorship of view in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: A previous minister of immigration, Mr. Nicholson, put forward a statement-called the Nicholson doctrine-that there should be no attempt to prevent Canadians from hearing a variety of points of view, whether or not they are controversial. Just because the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine does not happen to agree with the position of Mr. Leary does not mean to say he should not be given the right to come to this country. In fact, if we were to follow the rules as to what the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine thought was right or wrong, virtually no one would be coming to this country to present their points of view. I would say, Madam Speaker, that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: In direct answer to the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -let me say that on March 6 I was given a recommendation by the department, in which I concurred, that

April 16, 1980
Oral Questions
Mr. Leary be granted the opportunity to undertake a crosscountry tour and to be available to entertain in the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. I concurred in that recommendation made by department officials, contrary to the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine that we contradicted them.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary question from the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We are not talking about expressing opinions; we are talking about a conflict of interest. Obviously, the minister has not read his guidelines. You are not supposed to assist your relatives. In this case, you were assisting yourself in a commercial venture. You also issued instructions at Winnipeg and other cities that this man was not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question, will he come to it very quickly.


A. Daniel McKenzie: My question is: Arc you going to submit your resignation, or have you discussed this matter with the Prime Minister, to whom I have written on this matter? It is clear and simple that you have broken the guidelines of a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: The question there is really one of my privilege, because the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine refuses to listen to the truth. The truth is that I concurred in the recommendation on March 6. At no time after that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, do hon. members on the opposite side want to hear the truth, or not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not think they do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that on March 6, on an application from a Toronto law firm which was acting as agent for Mr. Leary, the recommendation was made. At that time, I received no further application or representation from anybody, including my relatives, concerning his appearance at a Winnipeg hotel. I learned about it probably at the same time as the hon. member did, by reading an advertisement in a Winnipeg newspaper; but no representation was made, nor was any contact made, about his appearance. The recommendation
was concurred in on March 6. The arrangement for him to appear at the hotel was on April 1, and there was no other communication in between time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Now that a decision has been made concerning the new F-18A fighter plane, could the minister advise the House about the program worth some $300 million to replace some 2,800, 2'/2-ton military trucks, and indicate at what time a decision will be made concerning this?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, as mentioned by the hon. member, it is true that under the armed forces equipment modernization program, there exists a program to purchase military trucks. We are drafting the specifications and, as usual, we shall make sure that the economic and industrial spin-offs are shared as fairly as possible among all Canadian provinces, in particular Quebec.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of widespread support for the proposition that prorata pensions should be paid to widows of disabled veterans where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent, and in view of the statement made to the media by the minister a couple of weeks ago that he was planning to bring in such legislation, can he tell us if it will be introduced in the House at an early date?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I am very conscious of the legislation to which the hon. member makes reference. I would also say that I am very conscious of the legislation brought in by the former minister. Much preparation has been done on this legislation to date. 1 will be making further recommendations, and I will
April 16, 1980

be speaking with my colleagues on this very subject at a time yet to be decided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister brings in legislation respecting the subject which I just raised, will he also be bringing in the long-promised review of the War Veterans Allowance Act, as well as other pieces of veterans' legislation that need to be brought up to date?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, this is all under review by the department at the present time.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. The Auditor General's report, released today, recommends that the government co-ordinate its response to the recommendations in the Lambert report, the d'Avignon commission and the Auditor General's findings.
I ask the Prime Minister, has the government decided to vest the responsibility for responding to these reports in a single minister and, if so, who is that minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker. It will be the President of the Privy Council.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I have a supplementary question for either the President of the Privy Council or the Prime Minister. The Auditor General's report which was issued today devotes an entire chapter to the need for improved accountability and control of federal Crown corporations, as was recommended in Bill C-27 introduced by our government.
In view of the fact that while the Speech from the Throne recommends the creation of at least three new Crown corporations, and no mention was made of the intention of the government to reintroduce legislation dealing with Crown corporations in the Speech from the Throne, and no mention exists on the order paper of today, why has the government refused to take action to date or to give any indication of any intention to take action to bring improved accountability and control to Crown corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of all people, Madam Speaker, 1 would have thought the former minister would know the answer to that question. He knows that preparation respecting the responsibility and control of Crown corporations has been the cause of work by the Liberal government for at least two years, and that when his government took office, a draft bill-which was given to the then minister-was a bill that had been drafted by our administration. So he knows very well what our intentions are in this regard.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker PRIVILEGE


MR. BAKER (NEPEAN-CARLETON)-SUGGESTED BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Walter David Baker: I gave Madam Speaker notice of a question of privilege involving the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).
At 2.15 p.m. today Madam Speaker tabled before the House of Commons the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, in which there are references to the operation of government. Earlier in the day, before this report was tabled in the House of Commons, there was delivered to the office of each member of Parliament a statement entitled: "Unemployment Insurance: Undetected overpayments in 1978 projected by the Auditor General of Canada, Statement by the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Employment and Immigration, April 16, 1980."
That was done this morning before the report was tabled in the House of Commons and during a period of time when there was a lock-up for the press and for members of Parliament, a lock-up which a number of members of Parliament attended. I do not know whether the minister attended or not. Perhaps he did not have any reason to attend. There is no doubt that he was not referring to anything else but the report of the Auditor General as tabled, because in the document which he delivered to all our offices in advance there was the following paragraph:
The Auditor General's annual report, tabled today-
That is in the past tense, "tabled today". It continues:
-estimates that Ul overpayments in 1978 may have amounted to $290 million.
It goes on to quote a number of statistics out of the Auditor General's report.
The fact of the matter is that members of the House of Commons who saw that report were subject to quite an appropriate condition of confidentiality until that matter was tabled here in the House of Commons. I think it is a matter that is quite serious. It involves two things. The minister's behaviour is a discourtesy to the Auditor General in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I do not know whether it has escaped his attention or not, but the Auditor General is a servant of Parliament, not a servant of the minister. That is the first thing. The second matter is that it is a contempt of this House, and 1 think a minister of the Crown should know better. I believe the minister should be required to stand in his place, apologize to the Auditor General and offer at least an explanation to this House of Commons and indeed apologize to the House for this contempt of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that, in the
70

April 16, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
enforced vacation period the hon. member has received since February 18, he did not take the time to read reports which were previously issued by his government when they were in office. If he had taken that time, he would have recognized that in October of 1979 the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission issued its annual report. Appended to that report was the Auditor General's report relating to the activities of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, at which time the exact figures and numbers that were contained were tabled in October of 1979.


Walter David Baker: Tabled today.


Lloyd Axworthy: All the information relating to overpayment under the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission was contained in the report of the Auditor General tabled in this House in October, 1979.
The report that was issued today was simply to give members of Parliament the opportunity to understand a number of corrective measures which we have since introduced upon learning of those statements of the Auditor General. It was simply to provide information to members so that they would not rush off in great haste and make great charges, but would understand that work by this government has been done to take the proper remedial measures based upon the Auditor General's report which was issued last October by the hon. member's own government. I suggest that the member go back and read that report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It was tabled today. That is sleezy.


MR. HNATYSHYN-JAMMING OF BROADCASTS OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at the earliest possible opportunity upon being apprised of a set of circumstances which affects the rights and privileges of all members of the House of Commons, their rights and prerogatives in terms of the dissemination of the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons. Specifically I refer to the fact that in the city of Saskatoon the provincial government, through its Crown corporation, Sask Tel or Saskatchewan Telecommunications, has in fact taken the step of jamming the transmission of the proceedings of this House of Commons to the citizens of Saskatoon.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In terms of the responsibility which Madam Speaker has to articulate, and in fact to investigate and take steps with respect to protecting the rights of members of the House of Commons, compels me to raise this matter at this particular point in time. Apparently what has happened is that there has been the transmission, through the facilities under Madam Speaker's chairmanship, of the proceedings of this House to Saskatchewan which has been received by the
equipment of Saskatoon Telecable Limited. This equipment has received the signals and the intention has been that it be carried over the lines owned and controlled by Sask Tel in Saskatoon. What has happened has been an interference with that particular dissemination.
1 would be interested in hearing from the minister responsible, the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), as to what attitude the government takes with respect to this interference and with respect to responsibility for and jurisdiction over broadcasting in Canada, particularly as it relates to the House of Commons. I bring this matter to Madam Speaker's attention as a question of privilege and as a matter which is under her responsibility in terms of the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons. There has been an interference in the dissemination of the proceedings here to the people of Canada. I ask for a ruling with respect to that matter so that there will be no further interference with the broadcasting to Saskatoon.


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, indeed I think it unfortunate that this situation has developed, one which has prevented people, particularly in the area of Saskatoon, as I understand the problem, from witnessing the proceedings of the House of Commons over the past week.
This question was drawn to my attention late last night. I must say that at first glance it appears to be a dispute between the cable company and the Saskatchewan Telephone Company. In any event, if Madam Speaker so desires, I will more than willingly put all the inquiry possibilities at the disposal of my department at the disposal of the Chair so as to get to the bottom of the matter, and to report to Madam Speaker.


MR. ANDRE-NOTICE OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE TO BE RAISED
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in view of the absence of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), 1 simply want to rise to give notice of the intention to raise a question of privilege tomorrow arising out of the remarks by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the throne speech debate yesterday, which might be of particular interest to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, you have not ruled yet on the question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). There can be no doubt that the reference was specifically to the Auditor General's report that you tabled today. Perhaps you, Madam Speaker, would like to take the matter under consideration and bring down a ruling tomorrow.
It seems to me that one of those responsibilities which you have taken on now is to enforce the rights and privileges of all hon. members of the House, and one of those long established in the history of our precedents is that ministers do not act in
April 16, 1980

this way, particularly under these circumstances where a lock-up existed and all of the attendant security for the purpose of avoiding the kind of leaks that this minister apparently has deliberately let himself in for by this press release.
Those words in my submission, Madam Speaker, are unmis-takeable and place the minister in a very difficult position. Either he apologizes and admits to the error, or you, Madam Speaker, have the problem on your hands of recognizing the rights and privileges of members of this House and of bringing down a ruling, so that if we see there is a breach we can act further on it.


Madam Speaker:: I wish to point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has not followed his intervention by a motion and therefore that I do not have to follow it up.
It can be considered that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton's remarks are derived, in a way, from the proceedings of this House since there is certainly some correlation between what he said and the fact that I tabled a document today. But without a motion 1 could not follow it up and it is deemed that the explanations given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) were considered satisfactory.


Erik Nielsen: 1 wonder if 1 might follow that up, Madam Speaker, in no way questioning your ruling, of course.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think the matter is sufficiently clear to members of this House. I have determined that since there was not a motion attached to the remarks of the hon. member, there was no reason for me to follow up on them. 1 think hon. members have heard the explanation of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


MR. NIELSEN-PAST PRACTICE ON QUESTIONS RAISED
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 have another question of privilege that relates to the practices of this place.


Madam Speaker:: Is this a new question of privilege?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, it is a new question of privilege, Madam Speaker, arising out of your treatment of this question. The practice of your predecessors has always been, whether a question of privilege raised was accompanied by a substantive motion or not, to rule either that the question of privilege raised at the time was such or was not.
There have been two ways that questions of privilege have been treated under our proceedings; the one such as that raised today by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and the other a formal question of privilege preceded by notice under our rules, and which is extensively dealt with in a very formal way.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
Always in the past I submit, Madam Speaker, your predecessors, and particularly the one you succeeded, have always ruled on questions of privilege of this nature which have been raised quite consistently and regularly in our proceedings. Indeed, when those opposite were on this side, that was the manner in which these questions were treated; Mr. Speaker always made a decision as to whether there was a question affecting the rights and privileges of members of this House.
1 would hope, Madam Speaker, that you would, as 1 am sure you will, follow that past practice so that we are not forced into the position in respect of this kind of a question, for instance where in future every single question of privilege raised must be preceded by notice and supported by a substantive motion.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I humbly plead with you that you do not let that kind of lecture on procedure influence your judgment, since the Standing Orders are very clear on that point. The second point of privilege that the hon. member is trying to raise amounts to nothing more than a criticism of the decision you rendered in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. As a matter of fact, all members know that you cannot say whether there is or is not a prima facie question of privilege when no motion has been moved, as is now the case.
In the past, Madam Speaker, some hon. members did use the question of privilege as a pretext to argue or debate a matter, that is true, but sooner or later the Speaker of the House always reached the conclusion that that was a very interesting issue but only for debate. I do not see in this case any question of privilege that requires an examination or a decision by the House, because ultimately it is the House that decides whether or not there is a question of privilege. So, Madam Speaker, I think we can seize this opportunity to remind ourselves that we should not abuse the time of the House and engage in that kind of a debate and that any member who feels his privileges have been really infringed upon should move a motion as required after raising the issue.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am interested in how attitudes can change here from Parliament to Parliament, depending on where people sit.
1 listened to what my colleague, the hon member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), said with respect to what might have been construed as a ruling of yours, and I use that phrase because my friend, the government House leader has talked about arguing with a ruling of Madam Speaker.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that you did not make a ruling, particularly in respect of the substance of the privilege and the substance of my comment. What you said was that there was no motion attached to it. However, there still remains, as the hon. member for Yukon said, even in a case where there is no motion, a question of privilege; and

April 16, 1980
Privilege-Miss MacDonald
what the hon. member for Yukon was saying was that with regard to my particular submission, however articulate or inarticulate it was, there has been no finding by you as to whether there was a breach of privilege by the hon. member, not involving process but the substance. That question, 1 respectfully submit to the Chair, is still before the House and I hope it will be resolved.
I would think that the procedure my friend has suggested is a commendable one, Madam Speaker, and I suggest with respect that you perhaps consider it. If there is then an appropriate question of privilege as a result of what has happened, as has happened before, instructions can be given, a motion can be drafted and the motion put. That has happened here before. That is an old practice.
I put that to you Madam Speaker, because it is quite important that what may be questions of privilege-and I am not making any judgment as to what Your Honour's judgment may be-should not be decided quickly, and certainly should not be deemed to have been decided by this House when you in effect have only dealt with the process and not with the substance.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that if we want order in the proceedings of the House, we should indeed be adhering to the rules. I decided there was no question of privilege because the hon. member did not move a motion after arguing his case. I agree this is a matter that can be debated and I am prepared to hear arguments about it but in the circumstances there is clearly no question of privilege.
MISS MacDONALD-MOSCOW OLYMPICS-REQUEST LETTER BE TABLED


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises out of the question period. It has to do with the reply by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-or the non-reply-when he was asked to table a copy of a letter to which he referred yesterday. It is a letter which he said he wrote to President Carter and from which he quoted or made reference very extensively.
In the time-honoured tradition of the House, when an hon. member is asked to table a document to which he has referred, it is normally so tabled. The Prime Minister has not done so today. His remarks of yesterday have caused confusion both in his own office and in the Department of External Affairs. It has caused confusion to the extent that three explanations were put out after his reply in the House of Commons by various government departments.
In order to clarify this question and to know exactly what the Prime Minister was referring to when he mentioned the letter in the House, it would be the normal and traditional courtesy to table the document when asked. Therefore, on that question of privilege, I ask that you see that the rules are
enforced and that that document is tabled by the Prime Minister.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would suggest you take that question under advisement. I shall inform the right hon. Prime Minister about it, but I was there and it seems to me that the Prime Minister referred to notes, and when referring to notes there is no obligation to table any document. In any event, the Prime Minister will be in a position to explain himself what he said.


Madam Speaker:: I think the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council is wise, and I shall take that question under advisement.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The Prime Minister said, and I quote his words for the benefit of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) as they are reported in Hansard at page 21:
Our policy on the Olympics and on other matters has not just been to take stands of our own, and in this matter I have indicated in a recent letter to President Carter that we would support him in the measures he announced and that we would join him in those measures.
The Prime Minister was referring to the Olympic Games. He referred to a letter which he had written to President Carter with regard to measures in which he supported him, and then he had to have his office clarify his answer. What we are asking is that that letter be tabled by the Prime Minister.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I may humbly suggest that you do not take the question under advisement any more; there is absolutely no question of privilege. It is not because the Prime Minister refers to a letter in his speech that he is forced to table it in the House. There is absolutely no Standing Order of the House which forces an hon. member or a minister or the Prime Minister to table a document if he does not refer to it or if he does not have it before him, and it is far removed from the Hansard quotation given by my hon. colleague.


Madam Speaker:: Since this is a matter involving the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and he is not present in the House, perhaps he will want to offer an explanation tomorrow. Nevertheless, I will take the matter under advisement.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns the apparent practice that has developed in question period of allowing government members a supplementary question. We have a limited time
April 16, 1980

during question period to raise the concerns that affect the country and our constituents. 1 am concerned, if the practice develops further of allowing government members to have supplementary questions, that it will deprive me of a chance to raise important issues which come up and affect my constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: Government members have access to cabinet and caucus. I would respectfully submit, Madam Speaker, that you have a close look at allowing this practice to develop further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table special studies by the Commissioner of Official Languages on the Library of Parliament and on the House of Commons Administrative Organization.


PETRO-CANADA TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), 1 wish to table in both official languages the annual report of Petro-Canada for the year ending December 31, 1979.


IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO INCREASE LOANS TO IMMIGRANTS
Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to amend the Immigration Act, 1976.


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

Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


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

Paul James Cosgrove: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes.


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

Hon. Pierre Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.


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

Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.


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

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, to amend the Saltfish Act.

April 16, 1980
Introduction of Bills


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

[Stage Direction]
amendment revising penalties for violation
Roméo LeBlanc: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.


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

Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, respecting the establishment of the Labour Information Bureau.


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

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, respecting Canadian non-profit corporations.


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

André Ouellet: for leave to introduce BilLC-11, relating to the inspection of electric and gas meters and supplies.


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

André Ouellet: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, respecting bankruptcy and insolvency.


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

Paul James Cosgrove: for leave to introduce Bill C-13, respecting the relocation of government agencies.


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

Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-14, to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act.


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

Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-15, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act.


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

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday,'April 15, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Clark, Yellow-
April 16, 1980
[Stage Direction]
head) (p. 31) and the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Broadbent) (p.43).
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, when I interrupted my speech last night, I was saying that the PQ government was not reliable, that it had abused in the past and would still try to abuse in the future the faith of well-intentioned people. Knowing that a large number of Canadians want a new Canadian constitution, the Parti Quebecois is trying with its referendum in Quebec to get a mandate to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada. We must not be taken in by that PQ stratagem. The new agreement wanted by a great majority of Canadians is an agreement between Canadians in Quebec and in the other provinces within Canada, not an agreement between Quebec on the one side and Canada on the other, not an agreement between two sovereign entities, apart, face to face, as Rene Levesque wants.
So those who would want to give Mr. Levesque a mandate to negotiate a new agreement within Canada are kidding themselves because they should know and remind themselves that the known option, the avowed objective of the Parti Quebecois, is to get out of the federal regime. So sovereignty is their objective, and association is a convenient ploy added by the Parti Quebecois to try and get more votes in the referendum. In 1976, by voting for the Parti Quebecois, the hand went into the wringer, and in 1980, by voting Yes in the referendum the whole arm is going to go through it, and normally when the arm is in the wringer, it is then very difficult to keep the whole body from following.
That is why, through you, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask my voters in the riding of Montreal-Papineau and all my fellow citizens in Quebec: Frankly, are you tried of being well in Canada? Frankly, are you tired of belonging to one of the greatest countries in the world? Are you tired of enjoying one of highest standards of living? Are you tired of benefiting from all the advantages and the wealth of the Canadian federation? Do you really have grievances so serious that you think you cannot solve them within Canada? Sincerely, 1 do not believe so. I believe you do not have any reason to be tired of all that and, consequently, it is very important that you vote No on May 20.
The PQ supporters would like us to believe that if the taxes paid to Ottawa by Quebeckers went instead to the Quebec government, this last government could finance the same social programs, provide the same services to the people and generate the same economic advantages. This is false, completely false. There would not be enough money for this, unless of course the taxes of Quebeckers were increased substantially.
During the referendum debate in the National Assembly, the separatists really laid it on. They really showed that ridicule has never killed anyone. The outrageous remarks of
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
agriculture minister Jean Garon were equalled only by his own circumference. How can Mr. Garon seriously pretend that the farmers as a group will be those who benefit most from Quebec sovereignty when neither he himself nor his leader, Mr. Levesque, are willing to guarantee to milk producers the same level of quotas that they now have within the Canadian system? It is all very well to say that the Quebec government will provide farmers with the same subsidies as does the federal government, but if the quotas are reduced, each farmer will lose thousands of dollars because his production will no longer be sold in the other Canadian provinces and because his overproduction will no longer be eligible for the subsidy.
The total contribution of Agriculture Canada to the economic activity of the various Quebec regions represents between $450 million and $500 million annually, without mentioning the assistance given by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which also spends several million dollars a year to promote the agricultural development of certain areas in Quebec. Mr. Garon said nothing about the services which Agriculture Canada provides Quebec farmers through its institutions in Sainte-Foy, its experimental farms in La Pocatiere and Normandin, its Lennoxville research station, and its facilities in Saint-Jean and Saint-Hyacinthe. Mr. Garon also omitted to speak about the considerable assistance given by Ottawa to the Granby farm co-operative, the largest in Canada, and to several other dairy co-operatives in Quebec. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 1 could say that the good farmer who has both feet firmly planted on the ground will be the last to be conned by the separatists.
Since I represent a constituency in the Montreal area, I would also like to tell to Quebec minister Bernard Landry, who brags about doing much for the economic revival in Montreal with his OSE program, that he can brag and boast and pat himself on the back, that he can multiply his television advertisements concerning this program, but he will still look like a school boy watering his rink with his little garden hose while the Canadian government is much better equipped with a big fire hose to do something effective and much more meaningful in the Montreal area. We only have to recall that the Canadian government spends directly each year in the Montreal area about $5 billion in wages, social assistance, subsidies, capital expenditures, guaranteed loans and contracts.
The Canadian government is very much present in Montreal in every sphere. I am thinking of Air Canada, the Canadian National, the National Harbours Board, the major postal installations, Transport Canada with its airport at Mirabel and Dorval, the Federal Development Bank, the National Film Board, Canadair, CBC. If Quebec were to separate, all these companies, all these departments, would leave Montreal or would at least reduce their activities by one-half. To make up for those losses, Mr. Landry would need much more than his small OSE program. The contracts awarded by Ottawa to Montreal-based companies or departments-and I shall con-

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. Towers
elude with this-are vital to the economic momentum of the city. There is nothing mean in saying No the day of the referendum; the No I ask my voters to cast is more significant, reveals more moral strength, courage and indeed wisdom than a Yes expressing abdication, surrender and resignation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remain in this country and contribute to its renewal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that the time alloted to him has expired.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is certainly with pleasure that 1 have this opportunity of doing my first pleasant duty in this Thirty-second Parliament in extending to Madam Speaker my sincere best wishes on her onerous and demanding task as moderator of this assembly. May Divine Providence guide her in her deliberations. I have every confidence that Madam Speaker's ability, experience and charm will combine to serve this body well. She can be assured of my respect and co-operation at all times.
It is my sincere hope that this Thirty-second Parliament will be a working Parliament, a responsible Parliament, a Parliament ready to address itself to the root problems which plague this great nation of ours. These problems will not be resolved by cosmetic legislation, by the application of a band-aid here or a lollipop there. They will be resolved only if we identify them, gear in on them and put long-term measures in place to correct them. That is why 1 was pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say through the Speech from the Throne that recognition would be given to members of Parliament so that they would have the privilege and the opportunity of stating the cause and the case of the people whom they represent.
I want to read that portion of the throne speech to which I refer. It appears at page 6 of Hansard for April 14, 1980, as follows:
Like all of your colleagues in the House of Commons, you who represent the people of Saskatchewan. Alberta and British Columbia, have a responsibility to represent your constituents to the nation. You also have an extra responsibility in the present circumstances to represent the nation to your constituents. It is a task no one else can fulfil. My government is prepared to co-operate fully in helping you to achieve this.
That is a challenge the Prime Minister has given to us and one which as a representative of the province of Alberta I am prepared to accept; but we do have to have the co-operation of members of the government and they must listen to us in order for us to accomplish this task. This is of fundamental importance. I must stress most emphatically that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) pay special attention to what we have to say because, after all, we are here not only as representatives of Canada, but also as representatives of our respective constituencies and the resources of the province of Alberta, as I interpret this privilege, should exist for all members. We must work together as a Parliament casting partisan gain aside so that the national interest is served. The nation looks to this institution. Parliament, for
leadership, for direction, for the social and political sustenance which will feed the search for identity and the quest for national unity.
The Speech from the Throne refers to the siren call. 1 hear siren calls across Canada; strident, harsh, frightening. Those siren calls would have this nation divided. Those siren calls pit region against region and province against province. They contribute to a further balkanization of Canada. The time for action is now. It is not too late for men and women of good will to address themselves to this fact of life. Now is the time to begin afresh to right wrongs, redress imbalances and bring unity where there is division.
1 represent a riding in Alberta, as I said earlier, but I am first and foremost a Canadian and a Canadian I want to remain, a Canadian from Alberta who is a member of a great confederation, a confederation we must make stronger. Certainly any callousness, especially from the minister of energy, can make our work in Alberta much harder because we are here, as I said earlier, to protect the rights and privileges of that province.
The representatives of that province and their own legislature have drawn up programs, and I trust that the minister of energy will listen well to their presentations. Unilateral action on the part of any member of this government can destroy the confidence that we require in order to have a strong confederation. I cannot state that emphatically enough to impress upon this government the situation that can be created if they will not listen and act upon the advice that we give.
What are some of the ills that plague our confederation? What are some of the problems we have to resolve? Actually, when the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was minister of industry, trade and commerce in the early seventies, he allowed that industry to begin to deteriorate. Under the last administration and the leadership of the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), we in western Canada were starting to pull out of some of the problems that existed. They were mentioned in this House. 1 remember them well. The former minister of transport who is now in the other place stated that the whole transportation system was in a mess. Under the leadership and guidance of the hon. member for Vegreville, it was being brought out of that mess. 1 hope the present Minister of Transport will continue down that road of progress started by the hon. member for Vegreville.
1 must impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that up to the present time the Minister of Transport is not off to a good start. He has created doubt in the minds of the farmers of western Canada by suggesting that he might pull out some of the support granted to the development taking place at Prince Rupert. That is not the way to engender confidence in the minds of western people, including those I represent in Alberta.
1 must also impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the members of the consortium who are also involved in this
April 16, j980

development must have the confidence of the national government that they are not going to be thwarted or misguided in their reference. Such is not the case at the present time because they are having doubts. I hope the Minister of Transport will give credence to this problem immediately and eradicate any of the doubts in the minds of those representatives who are members of the consortium.
We must never lose sight of the fact that Canada is the envy of most of the rest of the world. We are owners of the most valuable piece of real estate on this planet. We have the natural resources. We have the human resources to achieve greatness. We have the raw materials, physical and human. Do we as a people lack the knowledge and the initiative to use these resources wisely? I think not.
We have the means and the wherewithal to build a great nation but we can no longer content ourselves with temporary solutions to chronic and long-term problems. We lack an industrial strategy. What might Canada have been like today with an industrial strategy and an effective science policy? In 1978 we spent less than 1 per cent of the GNP on research and development. The United States spent 2.3 per cent; Switzerland, 2.2 per cent; West Germany, 2.1 per cent; The Netherlands, 2 per cent, Sweden, 1.8 per cent; Japan, 1.7 per cent; Scandinavia, 1.4 per cent.
In 1972 the Lamontagne science committee recommended that Canada strive for gross expenditures on research and development of 2.5 per cent of GNP by 1980. The recommendation was ignored and expenditures on research and development actually dropped below 1 per cent and have remained below 1 per cent for the past eight years.
You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why 1 am so concerned about research and development. Let me impress upon this Parliament that the agricultural community is more dependent upon advancing research and technology than a great many businesses that we have in Canada. We require fertilizers, new types of grains, new types of equipment; what do we do with zero tillage and all that at times when energy costs are increasing?
What would the net effect have been if we had wisely planned and executed even a 1 per cent increase? What if it had been 1.94 per cent, half way between the Scandinavian countries and the 2.5 per cent recommendation of the Lamontagne committee? Economists tell us that even a 1 per cent increase starting in 1972 would have resulted in a million new jobs to date in Canada, 400,000 of them in manufacturing alone, an area where we have a tremendous debt to cope with today in the end products that are manufactured in Canada.
Wc could have created $20 billion plus in new manufacturing sales for our domestic market and for the critical export trade also. We could have created an entire new industry in the research and development field which would have generated approximately 60,000 jobs for scientists, engineers and the graduates of our universities.
Young farm people go to universities too. They cannot all find jobs on the farms. They have to go out and get jobs. We
The Address-Mr. Towers
need to have a market for our farm products. Therefore, it is all tied together and we as parliamentarians must give cognizance to that fact.
Government initiative and encouraging expenditures on research and development could have resulted in $1.5 billion in research and development expenditures by industry and a total of 2.5 billion by industry, universities and government. Industrial research and development would have been funded by the revenues of new product sales. 1 want to impress that this could have been accomplished without any cost to the taxpayer. This is what 1 like. For too long we relied on these programs being funded by the taxpayers.
Surely the time has arrived when we can expect this adequate programming to provide for its own funding. If we are to survive as a manufacturing and trading nation, we must begin with basics. We must begin with a strong research and development component in our economy. We must begin to develop the technology at home to process our own resources. Let me impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that we in western Canada are very cognizant of this because it is what we want to do. We want to do that there because we want to keep our young people in our provinces. We must halt the process whereby we continue to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. We must accept the realization that it is not government which provides jobs in Canada but small business, manufacturing, the marketplace. Only there may be found sustaining means of improving our quality of life and safeguarding our standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the time of this House by dissecting the elements of the Speech from the Throne, but there are certain basic reflections 1 would leave with you. 1 am a rancher, a farmer, a small businessman, and as such 1 know I am speaking for literally thousands of people out in western Canada. Canadian small business is in trouble. Canadian small business is a victim of the cost-price squeeze. When I say "Canadian small business" I mean to include ranchers, farmers, all those involved in retailing and manufacturing. Equity is important to each and every Canadian-equity in the home, equity in the land, equity in a business. Without this equity we become serfs of government, we become crofters, tillers and workers of land we do not own because of the severe economic pressures of money and high interest rates.
increasing farm credit loans to the maximum of $100,000 is nothing more than band-aid treatment. The debt load on farmers is already too high. Extending further credit to a segment of our population already heavily committed to equity, land and equipment is tantamount to offering a drink of Kool-aid to a drowning person. High interest rates are not the answer to the basic problem. More credit is not the answer. We must look more closely at the global package of problems which confronts the farmer, the rancher, the small businessman. We must adopt measures which ensure that the small businessman is rewarded for risk venture. We must take measures to provide for the continuity of family farms.

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. Towers
We must cease to apply punitive tax measures which discriminate against individual initiative and the rugged work ethic. Where in the Speech from the Throne-this is an omission, I am sure-is reference made to further progress in the abolition of the capital gains tax? We must examine our capital gains law as it applies to the small businessman, the merchants, the small manufacturer, the farmer, the rancher. After all, small business is the backbone of this nation. It is the linchpin of the economy. It provides more than 70 per cent of the jobs in Canada yet it is treated as a poor cousin. Small business does not have the corporate clout, the strong voice of the multinationals. It has few champions in Parliament, it has little input into the making of the laws and regulations which affect its destiny.
Small business was dealt a particularly hard blow when the last Parliament was dissolved. Among the many progressive measures contained within the first pro-business budget in years was provision for the small business development bonds which would have resulted in lower interest rates in the smaller business community. Madam Speaker, unless the government brings back before the House some type of program of a similar nature, that is all down the drain.
Small business is being driven to the wall. If our economy is to flourish we must study and adopt economic strategies which favour all businesses in Canada, both large and small, but my emphasis today is on small business. A current publication of the Canadian Organization of Small Business, the Voice of Small Business, polled its subscribers and 75 per cent of those surveyed wanted a reduction in the size of the federal deficit. One of those who responded said: "If I consistently spend more than I earn I end up bankrupt; it is time government started operating according to the same principle as I apply to running my own business."
One of the phrases used in the Speech from the Throne causes me serious concern. We read that the government intends to increase still further the sphere of government operations. Mr. Speaker, an increase in government means increased taxes and greater burden on every Canadian. I do not think we can afford it.
Uncontrolled government spending threatens every Canadian owner-manager. Continued government deficits have led to double digit inflation which is destroying savings, eating up business investment and profits, forcing interest rates out of sight and stealing the rewards of entrepreneurial courage and hard work. We could all learn a lesson from the Dickens character who equated balanced spending with happiness and harmony and over-expenditure with misery. I hope the government is taking this to heart. Let us set ourselves to the task now.
1 want to dwell for a few moments on Bill C-28 of the last Parliament, which dealt with pensions and allowances for veterans and for their wives and families. It was interesting to observe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) introduce a motion on this subject under Standing Order 43 in the House yesterday and follow it up with a question today. Madam Speaker, it is amazing what a guilt
complex can do, even to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The NDP is well known for its support of motherhood concepts, but when members over in that corner have an opportunity to address themselves to actual legislation, they are quick to put distance between compassion and partisan politics as soon as it serves their own particular purpose. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues had ample opportunity in the last Parliament to address themselves to a continuation of beneficial legislation. But did they? No; they placed themselves and partisan politics before the well-being of this nation. I am sure our veterans are not so naive as not to recognize grandstanding for what it is.
To sum up, this country is great and will be greater because of its people and resources. We have an awesome responsibility to develop programs and policies which pay more than lip service to this thesis. I, for one, am willing to roll up my sleeves and begin to hammer out workable solutions to longstanding problems. An old Chinese proverb declares that every journey of a thousand years requires a first step. We must take that first step to build a better Canada for all Canadians in this, the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament.
[ Translation]
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to join all previous speakers and extend my best wishes to the distinguished members of Parliament whom we have elected to chair our meetings and our proceedings. I also want to join all those who congratulated the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. They both spoke very eloquently of their constituency and their country, and I wish them a long parliamentary career. Finally I would like to thank sincerely my electors of Outremont who gave me their confidence for the fourth consecutive time. May I simply say to them that I will try to continue to deserve the confidence they have shown in me since 1972.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment today on the diagnosis made by this government on energy conditions, our guidelines, our undertakings as well as the steps which we intend to take. I would also like to say a few words about the consequences of the PQ energy project in Quebec.

There is now a broad consensus that the world is facing a serious oil problem. We rely too much on a resource whose production and price are dictated in large part by the political whims and upheavals of an unstable Middle East. We also realize now that even if stability and reason were restored, the world would have to curb its appetite for OPEC's oil.
Strong efforts are needed for energy reasons; they are absolutely essential for economic reasons. The energy crisis is an economic crisis. Surely, everyone realizes by now that higher energy prices mean bad news for the world economy. The world is paying dearly for its failure, so far, to correct the basic imbalance between oil demand and supply. Continued failure to act will result in a worldwide economic crisis.

April 16, 1980
From a wide energy viewpoint, Canada is well off. Last year our net trade balance in energy was more than $4 billion. However, this is small comfort to Canadians worried about one commodity: oil. A country as rich in energy as Canada can and must move off OPEC oil and, as soon as possible move off the world oil market.
Canada is rich in renewable energy resources. These must play a larger role. We must also use our more plentiful natural gas and other fuels to replace oil. We must curb our demand for oil. And we will.
The energy crisis is also a crisis of Canadian nationhood. Unlike the situation in unitary states like Britain or Norway, energy benefits and burdens are not evenly shared across the country. The distinction between winners and losers is stark, easy to see, and potentially destructive. Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize our energy future. Worse, it could pit Canadian against Canadian in a way never before witnessed in this country. Thus we must, when looking for energy solutions, first address issues of fairness and unity.
We must also address the paradox of high foreign ownership and control of the petroleum industry. There is no shortage of Canadian petroleum talent. The list of success stories grows daily. There is money available from Canadians who are among the biggest savers in the world. We must bring more Canadians into positions of ownership and control.
Mr. Speaker, there is a broad consensus on the nature of these problems. But there is no agreement on the solutions. The former Conservative government no doubt tried to respond to the problems, but they were not successful. Indeed, Parliament and the electorate rejected the approach contained in the budget because it was unfair to consumers; it would have let OPEC determine Canadian oil prices, it did not deal adequately or fairly with the revenue distribution question, it was too weak in its encouragement of substitution away from oil, and it offered little to encourage Canadian participation.
1 shall be releasing shortly an analysis of some of the budget energy proposals. For now, let me highlight some of the shortcomings 1 have noticed.
First, let us consider oil prices. The public seems to have the view that the budget package would have caused domestic prices to rise by $4 per barrel in 1980 and by $4.50 per barrel annually to 1984. The reality, however, would have been different. The budget package included continuation of payment of world oil prices to domestic oil sands plants. It also included an automatic adjustment of the domestic oil price to 75 per cent of the world price in 1983 and to 85 per cent in 1984.
The result of these factors, coupled with the dramatic increase in the world prices which, took place in 1979, is that Canadian oil prices would have risen faster than expected even at the time the pricing negotiations were under way.
If, for example, world prices were to rise from present levels at 2 per cent above the inflation rate-a very modest assumption-year-over-year changes in our price would turn out to be
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
as follows under the budget deal: In 1980, prices that consumers pay on average for petroleum products would have risen by over $7 a barrel if we include the effects of the proposed excise tax on transportation fuels; in 1981, a further $5.80; in 1982, a further $4.70; in 1983, $10.90, as the domestic price is adjusted to 75 per cent of the world price; and in 1984, $7.60 more, to reach 85 per cent of world price.
These numbers assume that we do not see a repeat of a 1979-style world price increase. Is there anyone in this House who would stake much money on that sort of optimism? No, the reality would probably have been much worse for the consumer.
Of course, no one could have predicted the world oil price outlook which we now face. No one can do so now with any confidence. And that is precisely why in today's world we would not want to link our price to OPEC's price, and that is why we want a price determined in Canada on the basis of Canadian decisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The budget package would also have given enormous revenues to the major producing province, Alberta. We have no quarrel whatsoever with the concept that provinces deserve a fair share of the revenues from the sale of their resources. And a fair share in Alberta's case means a province that is by far the wealthiest member, in per capita terms, of the Canadian federation.
Furthermore, we welcome the economic surge in the west. Canadians everywhere share in the excitement at what is going on there. We will do our best to help the process of sustained and diversified growth. But there must be some balance in the way the oil and gas revenues are shared. There is no preordained formula for sharing the proceeds of our energy wealth. We must seek together a fair deal.
The previous budget package, in my view, did not contain a fair deal. The budget did move to reduce the revenues which would otherwise have accrued to the industry, and we agreed with that part of the proposals. But the package offered little to help Canadian firms.
Energy is the fastest growing sector in the Canadian economy. We must transform this sector. Not only is our target 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the industry, but we want a number of the large firms to be Canadian owned and controlled and become prosperous.
The amount of the revenues currently accruing to each of the several players is important. So too, however, is the way each party will be affected by future changes in the world oil price. In our view, the budget package did not deal adequately with this.
When our economy is hit by big OPEC price hikes, federal revenues shrink and our expenditures rise as we attempt to offset the effects of the price shock. In short, the federal government loses when OPEC gains. So, too, do the governments of the energy consuming provinces. In contrast, the energy producing areas enjoy all the upside potential. I do not

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
think anyone could describe as reasonable a deal where the federal government bears the downside burden and the other parties get the upside gain.
Let me make a final comment on the budget package. We could use much more of our surplus natural gas and other commodities for our own purposes, rather than exporting more while watching oil imports grow. But our gas producing industry has an export bias. Perhaps the most important reason for this is that the profits from exports exceed by a wide margin those from domestic sales. We have a system in place which encourages producers to seek foreign markets, rather than apply their considerable talents to pushing out oil from the domestic market. We believe that was not addressed adequately in the last budget.
We believe we have a better way. Our way begins with a set of clear, strong, nationally-oriented principles. We set out these principles during the election campaign and 1 now want to confirm, in case there is any doubt, that these are the foundation for our policies and proposals.
These are our principles: security, fairness and opportunity should be the touchstones of Canadian energy policy. In oil we seek security at reasonable made-in-Canada prices. Certainly this means price levels to the consumer lower than in the budget package. We reject world prices as a standard for Canadian supply prices. We will establish a new blended oil price system incorporating the cost of domestic and imported oil. We agree without hesitation that Alberta is entitled to significantly growing per capita revenues from its oil and gas resources and that other energy-producing provinces should also benefit substantially from the sale of their resources. We want a revenue system which, without further increases in world oil prices, leaves the federal government with at least as much revenue as in the December 11 budget, without having to impose punitive taxes on the Canadian consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: We want a revenue-sharing system that is structured so that if world prices rise the national government gets the share it needs to carry out its national responsibilities. We seek a pricing and incentive system which fosters rapid substitution of natural gas for oil. We will ensure accelerated development of indigenous supplies especially off the east coast. We will ensure the petroleum industry the incentives it needs to help achieve our energy goals, but we will ensure that Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled firms play a greater role. We will strengthen and expand Petro-Canada. We will increase our conservation efforts. We will use our energy wealth to create the basis for sustained, widespread industrial growth.
in Atlantic Canada offshore oil and gas developments will, under our policies, stimulate new industries and jobs. We will also encourage diversified development in western Canada whose resource wealth is already a strong magnet for investment.
These principles respond to the concerns of the majority of this House and the majority of Canadians everywhere. We will stick to these principles. They will be at the heart of any decision we make on energy. We have already made some of these decisions. We have provided $80 million in new funds to Petro-Canada and have asked that some of this money be used to establish a new alternative energy corporation which will aggressively seek the energy sources and solutions that we will need for the generations to follow us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: We are moving rapidly to obtain new and secure oil supplies, starting with Mexico. As a first step in establishing a new made-in-Canada price, we have notified Syncrude and Suncor that the price of synthetic oil will no longer be automatically tied to international prices.
We ended the special tax allowance for the frontier in favour of a more appropriate incentive program which would promote greater participation in the frontier by Canadian companies. These are just the first steps.


John Carnell Crosbie: What will you pay in Mexico? Will it be made-in-Canada oil in Mexico?


Marc Lalonde: Our principles will be the framework for oil pricing negotiations and for other initiatives we will be proposing to this House.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Mexican gas dance.


Marc Lalonde: However, the framework leaves considerable scope for movement with respect to a range of issues, as it should. We are determined to fulfil our responsibility to the country, but we will not be intransigent. Nor is there any question of our using our powers to override the legitimate rights of producing provinces. We are not declaring war on provincial powers, let alone turning the provinces into colonies or territories, as some appear to have said. On the contrary, we are determined to reach, as we have done in the past, a fair, negotiated settlement. To do so we will entertain considerable flexibility on most of the key elements of a new package: the price of old oil, the price of synthetic oil and so on. There is plenty of room to make a deal if negotiations are carried on in good faith.
1 have dwelt at some length on energy pricing and revenue sharing, but we must not become so mesmerized by these questions that we neglect other necessary actions to secure our energy furture. We will not do this. We will act to support new initiatives.
Canada faces serious economic challenges in the 1980s but it also has tremendous opportunities. It is not by a further weakening of the federal government that we will meet those challenges and those opportunities.
[ Translation]
The debate has indeed reached a turning point. For some time now, Canadians have been witnessing the erosion of their federal administration and many are deeply shocked by it.
April 16, 1980

Mindful Canadians are well aware that a province on its own could not meet the challenges of the modern world with as much decisiveness as a large nation united in its diversity. In its most recent publication, the C. D. Howe Institute states the following:
The main selling point for federalism at this stage is that the ten provinces probably have a better chance of success in solving their economic problems if they work on them together. This conclusion is dictated primarily by the interdependence of the ten provinces occupying the Canadian economic space.
The erosion of the federal government's powers would be dangerous enough were we faced only with economic and energy problems. But we now have in Quebec a premier who wants to break up Canada and he is aiming for the logical and ultimate end product of this process, that is, total decentralization. As a Canadian, I do not feel that is proper for Canadians, and as a Quebecker I am convinced that separation, be it called independence or sovereignty-association, would be altogether disastrous for my province and for its people. Energy is an obvious example of the benefits that Quebec derives from its participation in the Canadian federation. It demonstrates also how a dynamic national energy policy makes it possible for a region to develop its own positive resources in its own way, while recognizing its responsibilities to the rest of Canada and sharing the wealth of other regions. Canadians must unite and state positively their need for a national energy policy; we have to wonder what our separatists have to offer.
Well, what do Messrs. Levesque, Pariseau and Berube, our separatists, say? They continue their long list of complaints about imaginary grievances against the rest of Canada and claim wrongly that Quebec would be better off without the rest of Canada. Quebeckers who read the papers or hear these lamentations see them immediately for the blatant nonsense they really are. There is danger, however, that this nonsense, if it is repeated often enough and not disproved, may convince those who are ill-informed. I am glad to say that several powerful voices are now being heard and contradicting the most extravagant claims of the PQ. I should like to join forces with them and mention a few examples. The PQ representatives, anxious to demonstrate their scorn for the blessings of the Canadian federation, show that they do not care much for the effects oil prices have on Quebec consumers. In fact, some PQ ministers even go so far as to say that Quebeckers should pay world prices for their oil. Are they really aware of what they are saying? If it did pay world prices, Quebec would immediately, and I insist immediately, have to pay $3.8 billion more a year for its oil, that is some $600 more for every Quebecker. And that would be only a start.
The oil pricing agreement we are seeking will be directly related to the cost of production in Canada. But Mr. Levesque and his colleagues want Quebeckers to pay the prices set by the international cartel known as OPEC. Had Quebec not been part of Canada, it would have paid, to the end of 1980, $9.5 billion more for its oil since 1974 than it will in fact.
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
thanks to the Canadian single price policy we implemented in 1974. Today, I appeal to my Quebec compatriots and beg of them, with all the conviction that I can muster, not to let themselves be taken in by those peddlers of illusions the Pequistes are. Especially in the field of energy, separatist dreams can only lead us directly to a sombre and sinister reality.
If, tomorrow morning, Quebec were to get its sovereignty-association, if, as the PQs are suggesting, it had to pay world prices for the oil it uses, as the PQ ministers would have it, every single barrel of oil in Quebec would cost $20 more than it does now, and every gallon of gas would go up by 57 cents tomorrow morning. And here is what that increase would mean in terms of the pocketbook of every Quebecker, man and woman. It would cost $400 more a year for a Quebec family to heat the home whether it be with gas or oil. A family with a car that drives about 12,000 miles a year would have to pay $450 more for gas. The taxi driver who drives some 60,000 miles a year would have to dig out of his pockets about $2,250 more to drive his cab. And the owner of a dairy farm, who uses about 2,200 gallons of diesel fuel and gas would have to pay $1,250 more a year. In addition to that, the average Quebec family would have to pay an extra $400 for non-energy product consumption, that is for all it buys that is not energy proper but which contains oil products and whose prices would naturally go up. As all those statistics are interrelated, there is nearly no limit to the additions that can be made. If you take an average Quebec family which owns a home, has a car and uses oil or gas to heat itself, well, under the PQ plan that average family tomorrow morning would pay in additional expenses an amount of $1,250 a year. That is what they are trying to sell us. That is the sad reality of the PQ ideology and that is what I am warning all Quebeckers against. The alternative is simple, progress further with Canada or move back with the PQ plan.
The Parti Quebecois also lays strong emphasis on the hydroelectric resources of the province and even talks about them as being the miracle answer to the energy problems of an independent Quebec. Here again the PQ philosophy is closer to fiction than reality. Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere are proud of the spirit of entrepreneurship and the technical competence of those men and women who made Quebec's power resources what they are today. It is a considerable asset for the province and the country as a whole. But it is nonsense to suggest, as the Parti Quebecois does, that revenues generated by the exports of hydroelectric power could compensate for the costs of imported oil at world prices. At present, Quebec consumes $6.9 billion worth a year of imported oil. If they had to pay the world price, could the sales of electric power to the United States compensate for such an amount? Far from it. If you take 1979 as an example, total sales of Quebec power to the United States would amount to about

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. King
$200 million to $300 million which would leave only a small deficit of about $6.6 billion. Well, the Parti Quebecois has got us used to $500 million deficits but now they are offering us a $6.6 billion deficit.
In any case, even if it were possible to strike a certain balance between the cost of imported oil and the revenues from the sales of electricity, which is not the case, Quebec would find itself in a much worse situation than the one it is and has been in. It would be more vulnerable to higher prices for imported oil, more vulnerable to embargoes and so on than we are now. A PQ minister recently worried about the possibility that Alberta oil deliveries to Montreal might dwindle in the 1980s and that Quebec would then be exposed to oil shortages, while Ontario and the western provinces would be completely protected.
Yet, this is exactly what would happen if Quebec withdrew from Canada. However, Quebec is part of Canada and will go on being part of it. Therefore, the dark prediction of the Quebec energy minister is completely false. We shall do everything possible to reduce our dependence on imported oil. However, as long as there is a risk of a shortage, this risk will be shared equally by all Canadians. This is the basis of our country. This is the profound meaning of being part of Canada. When we imagine what would be the energy and economic situation of a sovereign Quebec, we become rapidly convinced of the need to vote no to the question now asked by the Parti Quebecois.
Mr. Speaker, to remain united in spite of our differences, and united for the welfare of everyone is the only logical solution offered to all Canadians if we want to be able to face the numerous problems that will arise in the next ten years. When we speak about oil, natural gas and coal, we are speaking about sources of energy which are essential for our standard of living and quality of life, but at the same time, we are speaking about types of energy which cannot be renewed once they have been used. Not so much for ourselves as for those who will come after us, we may have to think about expanding our horizons. No province and no government alone can develop a true national energy policy. And in this area as in so many others, unity and co-operation are essential.
Mr. Speaker, we are determined to develop a true Canadian energy policy which will take into account the legitimate aspirations of the provinces and the needs of the entire country. In conclusion, I can only invite the people of Quebec not to cut themselves off and not to reduce the importance of Quebec by withdrawing from Canada at such a critical period, and not to deprive themselves of all that the rest of Canada is able and willing to provide them.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, may I count on you to convey to Madam Speaker on behalf of
myself and the fine Canadians whom I am honoured to represent in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen the following message:
Madam Speaker, please accept sincere, warm and appreciative congratulations on your elevation to your present exalted position. May we fortify that congratulatory message with our personal invitation to become acquainted with both the peoples and the scenic values of our favoured part of Canada by favouring us with an early visit?
I feel distinctly honoured, Mr. Speaker, to participate in the throne speech debate as the member of Parliament representing the citizens of Okanagan-Similkameen in British Columbia. Although I was a member of the Thirty-first Parliament, this marks the first occasion on which I have risen to address the House. I would therefore ask your indulgence as I briefly speak of the unique character and personality of this section of Canada which I am honoured to represent.
The riding of Okanagan-Similkameen occupies some 200 miles of international border with the United States. Its western boundary is about 150 miles from the Pacific ocean, and its eastern extremity about 200 miles from the Rocky Mountains. Its geography extends from Princeton and Merritt in the west to Grand Forks and Christina Lake in the east. It centres on the Okanagan Valley, including Osoyoos on the forty-ninth parallel to 100 miles north past the growing community of Westbank. The major city in the riding is Penticton, the city of peaches and beaches and which is also noted as the home town of the famous Penticton Vees Hockey Team, the last amateur Canadian team to capture world hockey supremacy when they defeated the Soviet Union team by the score of five to zero in the crucial final game. I was honoured to be present in Germany on that occasion.
The Okanagan Valley and its parallel counterpart, the Similkameen Valley, are world famous producers of tree fruits-apples, pears, peaches, apricots and cherries. I hope that in season I will be able to share with some of you underprivileged members of this House the incomparable flavour experience of eating freshly picked cherries from my own orchard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: In addition to orchards, these valleys now support Canada's finest vineyards. A thriving and growing wine industry has earned recognition as vintners without equal in Canada or the world. The riding contains the largest cattle ranch as well as many dozens of smaller ranches. Lumber and mining are very important elements of the economy.
Many in this chamber have visited the Okanagan and Similkameen as tourists in the summer seeking sun, sand and water which we have in abundance and in the winter for skiing at any of the dozen excellent ski facilities. Now we see the latest phenomenon of our Canadian society, attracted by its benevolent climate, its lakes and mountains, its quality of life; retired persons from across Canada are moving in increasing numbers to spend their senior years in the most ideal surroundings to be found in Canada and perhaps the world.
April 16, 1980

With that as a preamble from a native son of the Okanagan,
I will move from the virtues of my riding to an equally sincere and objective, but not so flattering, review of the government's intent as revealed in the content of the Speech from the Throne.
My riding was newly created for the May 22 election. The area has previously been represented by the CCF, the Liberals, the Social Credit and the Conservatives. 1 know that I state the obvious when I say that 1 was elected because more of the electorate endorsed my positions and policies as well as those of the Progressive Conservative Party than supported the views of the other four candidates. While this is obvious, 1 mention it because I believe we must impress on hon. members opposite that their situation in western Canada is a direct result of the rejection of the policies and the philosophical positions of their party and their leader.
Unfortunately, nothing in the Speech from the Throne would lead us to any degree of optimism that the offensive nature of that government's position has been noted in more than a cursory fashion and dismissed with the casual statement that in the west many believe their problems are ignored, their voices unheard, and their contribution is unrecognized. We believe it sincerely. There are many other descriptive phrases that could be added to the recitation of the factors that offend western Canadians. I suggest that, using the throne speech as the criterion for change, western Canadians can only look to the future with added apprehension.
Now, Mr. Speaker, permit me to respond directly to the throne speech. The Ottawa Citizen of April 15 gave it the headline, "An Admission of Errors". It went on to say:
With a fanfare of generalities, the Trudeau government has unveiled a throne speech that reads like an agenda for what it should have done during its previous I 1 years in power.
Changed circumstances, including a weak dollar, enormous government deficits and devastating interest rates (resulting largely from the cumulative effects of the spending of the past), have extracted from the government an expression of concern-
The throne speech makes no mention of a budget, no mention of a strategy designed to create an economy in which interest rates would not be set to remain competitive with U.S. rates.
It is interesting to note that in the throne speech the government chose to acknowledge duly elected members from the three western provinces under Part V of the speech, a section which is entitled "An Active Foreign Policy". I trust that the government which authored the Speech from the Throne will by its words and actions prove that that inclusion was inadvertent.
Western Canada is not foreign territory. Many of us on this side of the House ask that the government remember and recognize that fact. We are representatives of that great part of Canada, and we will resent any action which demonstrates a lack of respect for the electoral decisions taken in this past election.
Let me dispute a statement made early in the Speech from the Throne which reads;
We observe today not only the beginning of a new Parliament but the start of a new era.
The Address-Mr. King
Yes, we do have a new Parliament and we have a new decade, but we have an era complete with the same old, tired faces in the government, the same old cliches, divisive tactics, tired responses and the same old answers to the same old questions-questions raised because of the same old and damaging Liberal policies which have brought our nation to this low point in its history.
I read that "Canadians expect much of this Parliament" and I ask you if this is so, Mr. Speaker. I would doubt that such high expectation exists. Many Canadians have become cynical and embittered by the disappointments of the last dozen years. The electoral results must emphasize to hon. members opposite that the target of that cynicism in our part of Canada is Liberal policies, past and present. The question that must be addressed to hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, is: "Do you care?".
We read in the throne speech that "the first task is to clear the accumulation of essential legislation left from previous Parliaments". And later in the same paragraph we read:
To that end, my government is relying on the good will of members and senators of all parties.
I think I can assure hon. members of the government that they can rely on at least the same degree of co-operation and evidence of good will on the part of the opposition as they displayed in the Thirty-first Parliament in their role as the opposition. I know, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of the government will take great comfort in my words as they review their conduct, particularly as recorded in Hansard on November 6 and 7 last year, and on most other occasions as well.
We have a legacy of national misdirection, foisted on Canada by repeated offerings of succulent expediency over a nourishing diet of basic sound policy by federal Liberal governments under disastrous leadership in the past 12 years. This legacy of Liberal government policies has led this nation to a situation which can only be described as a litany of despair and disaster-inflation, high interest, unemployment, bankruptcy and division. Where is this vaunted Liberal ability to govern? It is not to be found in history and, unfortunately for Canada's immediate future, it is not to be found in the performance of this government, judging from the content of the subject matter today.
As a western Canadian I am resentful of the tone and implications of many of the statements contained therein. Who, may 1 ask, have been the main beneficiaries of this government's past policies? The western electorate? The western electorate in the last two trips to the polls has demonstrated with some knowledge its view of confederation in action under the auspices of the Liberal government.
The sinister, underlying message contained in the throne speech is that this government is determined to centralize more power in Ottawa, to resist regional initiatives and rights, to act highhandedly with individuals and regions in the so-called name of Canada's total well-being, but with the underlying intent of changing forever the face and nature of our nation.

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. King
These changes are not being allowed to evolve from the concerns and aspirations of the persons who are citizens of Canada; these changes to our structures, our standards, our social order do not result from a groundswell of sentiment or persuasion but from the dictates of those opposite who seek to force philosophical, ideological and economic change insidiously upon us.
There are many vital factors that this throne speech fails to address. There is the same old theme dominating the message. We have heard it all before-the land is strong, inflation wrestled to the ground, security, equity, opportunity, the future is bright, responsible government, sharing, strengthened national institutions, economic challenges. Mr. Speaker, this government continues to be long on rhetoric and short on substance on matters of concern to Canadians.
The throne speech includes the warning that "in every part of Canada there are forces which are driving us apart rather than bringing us together". It also tells us:
To all these forces of discontent, my government has one clear response.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this response is: "Give us more power; trust us, the government that brought you such goodies as 20 per cent interest, metrification, undisciplined spending, damaging inflation, a weakened defence posture, regional, cultural and linguistic division-trust us." Trust us indeed!
We are told that "Canadians are a sensible people. They understand that these are difficult economic times throughout the world". Mr. Speaker, Canadians also understand that the difficult economic times they face as a nation are a direct result of past undisciplined action on the part of tired, uninspired government presently led by the honourable reconstituted Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
That understanding is held no more acutely anywhere than it is held in western Canada. One has only to peruse the voting pattern in the last two elections to underline that western Canadians are sensitive to what Liberal philosophical positions hold for our part of the nation.
The throne speech also tells us that "Canadians will accept sacrifice to meet the economic challenges of the 1980s, but that they will not accept injustice". Mr. Speaker, 1 trust that this government will note well, capitalize that fully and underline it distinctly. A distressed and sometimes disillusioned western Canada will not-and I repeat, will not-accept unjust confiscation of its rights and its resources.
In the next paragraph the speech tells us that "Canadians recognize the need to live within their national means". Mr. Speaker, Canadians as individuals indeed recognize this fact. Our difficulties as a nation have arisen because the government opposite has abused and reabused this basic principle and once again gives every indication that the depth of its commitment to fiscal responsibility is to indulge in cliches while its actions belie its words. The Speech from the Throne is full of promises to expand government activity, to increase control of the economy in a marked and ominous shift to the left.
The speech then states:
In particular, my government recognizes the need to protect those Canadians most affected by unacceptably high interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) includes some 10,000 Canadian mortgage holders only in that category; the other 500,000 are apparently deemed by the hon. minister to be enjoying the experience of increased mortgage payments.
"Energy policy is as important for Canada in the 1980s as railway policy was in the 1880s". The railway era was one which had as its major thrust private initiative with the supporting activities of government. We see in this throne speech a deliberate but not surprising direction taken in energy policy by a government whose disastrous record in this field speaks for itself. We see an energy policy that promises greater intervention by government. We see another government agency, the Petroleum Price Auditing Agency, set up to be the window on the agency the Liberals set up to be a window on the industry. PetroCan, which was set up by that government across the floor to be a window on the industry, will now have another agency looking into its window.
How long will this proliferation and duplication of effort by agencies of government go on? Just so long as there is a Liberal government whose objectives are self-perpetuation, larger bureaucracies, greater burdens on the taxpayer, a resolute intent to avoid realities which would require some evidence of a discipline that does not have any place in the philosophies of modern Trudeau Liberalism.
So the energy policy speaks only of greater government activity, new agencies, new measures and new directions. But surprisingly, and totally out of character with the challenging nature of the preamble which was a challenge to Canadians to seize the opportunity, there is no vision for Canada of self-sufficiency in energy matters; no such future. This government speaks instead of negotiating foreign contracts, creating greater dependence on others, which is a step away from national energy freedom. Then the government compares it to the 1880 railway era. That is irresponsible.
In the Speech from the Throne this sentence appears:
My ministers believe that Canadians want more effective government, not necessarily less government.
The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, clearly signals that Canadians will now suffer bigger government, more government intervention in their lives, new agencies proliferating and the activities of old agencies intensified. It will be a confirmation, as Geoffrey Stevens put it, of the darkest suspicions about the socialistic predilection of the Prime Minister and his cohorts.
Canadians do want effective government. That same Liberal government under the present Prime Minister has been effective. It has effectively split our nation on regional and cultural lines. It has effectively given our nation a gross national debt whose burden voids our ability to act independently on such important basics as internal interest rates. This retreaded
April 16, 1980

Liberal government has been effective in making this energy-rich land of Canada increasingly dependent on foreign sources of petroleum products. This government has effectively and unnecessarily, by studied inattention and inaction, made our nation's industries and transportation services vulnerable to interruptions in foreign oil supply.
1 can go on and on with a recitation of this government's previous failures, but this is the effective nature of the government opposite.
I would characterize the citizens of Okanagan-Similkameen as not too different from the mainstream of citizens across Canada. They are hard-working, honest, patriotic, independent and God-fearing. They resent indifference, and particularly they resent indifference spiced with arrogance, the hallmark of Liberalism.
Please understand this: We do not ask that confederation extend us some advantage denied others. We do ask, and we insist, that we not be taken advantage of because of our loyalty to that confederation. The Prime Minister in equating happiness with prosperity does a disservice to Canadians who believe that there are other distinctive elements in the recipe. Recognition and respect are two which should notably be added, for material prosperity without the psychology of contentment means but little in the well-being of the individual, the region or the nation.
If the policy of government is addressed to favour those regions of Canada with electoral strength to the disadvantage of those areas which do not represent equivalent electoral clout, we can expect the voice for regional autonomy to become more strident.
1 have found, Mr. Speaker, that the preoccupation of the people in Okanagan-Similkameen is with national and international affairs. We are deeply concerned with the aloof stance taken by this Liberal government in its past incarnation, a stance which denied a responsible shouldering of the load to defend our freedoms against the growing threat of Soviet expansion and aggression.
Thus I am happy to note for the first time in 12 years of Liberal throne speeches a reference to our commitment to NATO. It is unseemly that it took a demonstration of Soviet aggressive intent in Afghanistan to move this government, and I await with some misgivings based on past attitudes the actions of this government backing up its throne speech statement.
Environmental concerns in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen require senior government financial assistance. Water quality considerations have the utmost priority. Limited precipitation of only 11 inches per year provides very little natural flushing action in our lakes. It takes 60 years of runoff to displace the water in Okanagan Lake. Increasing populations require immediate action. Sewage outfalls must be removed from limited flow waterways. We will be seeking means from this government to help local jurisdictions accomplish this goal.
The Address-Mr. McRae
In the throne speech reference is made to the multicultural mosaic of Canada. 1 expect recognition from this government of the aspirations of the many new Canadians in my riding to preserve certain aspects of their culture while engrossing themselves in their responsibilities as Canadians. 1 look for responsive encouragement from this government to those aspirations.
1 see nothing of substance in the throne speech for the fruit farmer or the rancher who has an operating loan of $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 bearing interest at 20 per cent. 1 see nothing substantial to help the small independent logger struggling to make payments on his $75,000 worth of trucking equipment. I see nothing substantial to offer relief for the merchant who finds the burden of carrying stock on his shelves and on his racks beyond his capacity under the high interest rates imposed by this government's management.
1 see nothing of substance offered to young Canadians seeking to own homes. The policies which we advanced provided mortgage interest deductibility and offered operators of small businesses substantial relief from the burden of interest.
By inference, the Liberal opposition implied that they had something better to offer. The throne speech reveals the shallowness of their criticisms, the audacity of their endeavour and their overwhelming compulsion for power overcoming responsibility and reason.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I have the opportunity to speak in this Thirty-second Parliament.
1 begin by congratulating Madam Speaker on her appointment. She has served Parliament well over the past seven or eight years. I believe she will do a very fine job in her new role. It is fitting that a woman take the chair as Speaker in this House. We look forward to her deliberations and judgments which, as in the past, will be fair and carefully worked out.
I also want to congratulate the mover and seconder on the eloquent speeches they made in initiating this debate.
In spite of what some opposition members have said, this is one of the best throne speeches I have heard since coming here, and this is the fourth Parliament in which I have been a member. What we have in the throne speech is basically a call to Canadians to come together and unite for a strong Canada.
As a representative of two communities very close to the centre of this country, Thunder Bay, being the larger community, and Atikokan, with some smaller communities in between, we take very seriously our role bridging the west and the east, a kind of centre point in this country. As Canada's second largest port and the world's largest grain port, we are very pleased that the throne speech has given prominence to the movement of grain. The government has clearly indicated it will do everything in its power to ensure more grain is moved.
The central role of Thunder Bay is a prime factor in this movement. At the present time, about 70 per cent of our grain moves through Thunder Bay. We have been told by people

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. McRae
such as the senior officials of the CPR that if it were not for the Crownnest rates all grain could be moved cheaper through Thunder Bay, through the Seaway and around through the Panama canal to ports in the Orient. That is the best way to move grain.
We are very anxious that some improvements be made in the movement of grain through Thunder Bay. We believe that rerouting the CN and CP track along the same corridor and building new yards near where the grain is to be discharged will help significantly in bringing this about.
The community of Atikokan has a great deal more difficulty. Two mines were shut down in the past two years resulting in 1,200 people being put out of work. There are some serious problems there. I was not happy during the six or eight months the Clark government was in power. There was much that could have been done in that area that was not done. In particular, with the kind of thinking that prevailed in the public service, especially in organizations like CMHC where there was a terror of making a mistake or doing anything because people did not know from one day to the next whether they would be wiped out-
Some hon. [Members: Oh, oh!


Paul Edmund McRae: The people from CMHC did not support the people in my community who are having massive problems trying to hold on to their homes and so on. I hope there will be a new era in this regard.
The world of the 1980s is extremely complex. As Canadians and members of Parliament in the debate that has gone on over the past several years, there has been a tendency to oversimplify the problems that face us. There is a whole set of unique problems that have not been faced in the past. I have said that many times in this House of Commons, as have some members opposite. We are facing problems of inflation and high unemployment at the same time as massive interest problems. We are facing a whole series of economic problems that are different in magnitude and quality from those faced in the past. There is no question about that. We face social breakdowns that were never experienced in the past. We face problems in terms of global breakdown and the difficulty that individual nations are having in coming to grips with their problems. The same is true of multinational corporations. These are problems that previous governments did not have to respond to.
When I spoke in this House two years ago, we talked of a 5 per cent inflation rate as a kind of base zero. We now talk of 10 per cent as base zero. The rate of inflation in the U.S. has been running at about 18 per cent for the past few months. These problems are not being solved.
Added to that is a single factor that is unique. I refer to the beginning of a realization in the past two, three or four years that there is a very grave energy shortage. It is grave in both Canada and the United States. I want to speak about that and economic problems in a minute.
The point I wish to emphasize is that there are not simple answers to these problems. Increasing the money supply, the interest rate or, as the NDP would do, increasing government spending and creating greater demand and purchasing power will not work and have not worked for quite some time. We have increased demand at a tremendous rate and it has not worked. There are many reasons for that.
We have to look at the eighties as a new kind of era. I wish to refer hon. members to the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on New Year's eve in 1975 going into 1976. He talked about lifestyle changes. He was criticized for that. Some of those lifestyle changes are going to be with us. The energy problem is one that highlights this, but that is only one of them.
I wish to deal with the energy situation. I was particularly pleased with the references in the throne speech to the energy problem. The throne speech was superb in that regard. I was pleased because most of the thinking that went into that came from people on this side, not just government members but members of our caucus. It followed very, very carefully the statements we made during the campaign.
There are a couple of simple things we can say. We were told last June by the National Energy Board that conventional crude oil production in Canada in 1978, the last year for which they had figures, was approximately 1.4 million barrels a day and that that production would be down to something in the order of a little over 500,000 barrels a day by 1990. That is a reduction to just a little over a third. It has presented us with a series of problems. We were also told at that time that the gas supply demand curves would meet about 1992 or 1993. This was revised upwards.
Then we had what I call the famous Thursday when the prime minister stood up and announced that there could very well be a shortage of oil in eastern Canada if there was a bad winter. Then the minister of energy got up two and a half hours later and announced we were going to give away or sell 2.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That was an interesting day, and the interesting thing about it was that he had to be asked six times by our members when we were on the other side what the cross-over date between supply and demand was under the new scheme, and the answer finally came out, after the sixth try-1997.
So we have a serious problem with respect to oil and natural gas. There are some solutions to it but 1 think this is the basis of the thinking that went on.
The idea that permeates the opposition in this debate is interesting: it is that because you have done something one way for the last 12 years you are always going to continue doing it that way. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the world is changing and we will have to learn to change with it.
One of the major changes in our thinking in the last six or eight months was that we could no longer go along with the notion of world oil prices-that world oil prices bear no relevance to Canadian needs. It was one thing when the world
April 16, 1980

price was $12 or SI3 a barrel. It is another when it doubles or almost triples in the course of a year, when you go from $13 to $30 or $34. It is a wholly different ball game. So we decided we had to abandon the notion of world oil prices and come to the notion that oil prices within Canada should be related to cost, and we came up with the notion of a "made in Canada" price, which is really a blended price.
1 am concerned about the interpretation which the opposition, and particularly the producing provinces-I have especially in mind Alberta-place upon this notion of a blended price. I sense in Mr. Lougheed, not in the people of Alberta, a kind of paranoia that worries me. It amounts to an almost desperate plea on behalf of his province. He is looking upon crude oil, and rightly so, as being a depleting resource which will virtually disappear in the next 15 or 20 years, and therefore he has to get as much out of it as he can as fast as he can.
I believe this is a mistake because I think this is not the case.
I think Alberta has a depleting resource in oil in a very short space of time, and a depleting resource in a somewhat longer space of time in natural gas. In a much longer space still it has a depleting resource in tar sands, and in a much longer space again in coal.
I think what we have to do with this whole scene is to make people in Alberta and the government of Alberta believe that there is stability in this, that Canadians are willing to pay a reasonable amount to the people of Alberta over a long period of time and that this blended price, which will be made up of a certain price for conventional crude oil and a different price for tar sands, differing gas prices and so on, this blend of prices in terms of secondary and tertiary production, will be very, very gentle to Alberta and will sustain over the long term the economy of Alberta. It is not one of those things where, when it runs out, it is all over. It is a long-term thing and I think it is the long-term agreement which we make with Alberta which will be extremely important.
A final word on this price question-I overlooked one particular point I wanted to make. Getting back to the National Energy Board, the board produced a paper and all members were involved in it in terms of its presentation. It was presented to all sides of the House in November last. It showed that by 1985 revenue from oil and gas based on a $1 increase every six months-not on $4 or $4.50 a year but on $1 every six months-would be in the order of $30.54 billion, most of which would be going to Alberta, and that the provincial share would be something close to $10 billion-$9.80 billion. That is without the $4 or the $4.50 we are talking about.
I am not opposing this, but that would ensure to Albertans something in the order of $5,000 per man, woman and child per year. This would be sustained over a long period of time because the blended price would give us that effect. So I think Albertans have to feel easy about their future. I know they will want to share their resources with Canadians, and I do not think the present government means to grab, as we are hearing. That is not what we are trying to do. What we want is a fair deal for all Canadians while at the same time giving
The Address-Mr. McRae
Albertans a generous allowance for enabling us to use those resources. And we believe those resources exist basically for all Canadians.
There are other things we are concerned about in our energy policy as it is enumerated. One of them is, of course, to find alternate sources for conventional crude oil from the world markets where we know we shall need to obtain crude oil. Do not forget that we are talking about moving from 1.4 billion barrels to 516 million barrels by 1990. So we shall need to buy offshore oil, and we on this side are very pleased that shortly after the new government came to power we were able to negotiate a most satisfactory initial arrangement with Mexico. We hope to do the same with Venezuela and the Mexican President will, I understand, be in Canada next month or the month after for the signing. We think this deal is very important because it is important to diversify in this respect. But we do have the problem of having to purchase close to 300,000 barrels a day for the east coast, for the Atlantic provinces, and we think some of this demand can be reduced considerably by the very rapid building of the Q & M pipeline. We think this has a very high priority and that we should substitute natural gas, of which we have a certain abundance. I do not think we have sufficient abundance to sell any more off, however. But there is certainly some abundance at this stage of the game and this would replace the oil we purchase for Atlantic Canada.
The strange Tory government meandering around this PetroCan issue was something I could not understand. It struck me as unbelievable at a time when the Canadian government needed a basic instrument for a national policy, an instrument which itself could do things when it was necessary to do them. This was the whole basis of PetroCan; it was not just something designed to increase Canadian ownership or to keep an eye on the industry. It was basically an instrument for a national energy policy, and it is a fine instrument. To talk about giving it away or selling it or God knows what seemed incomprehensible to me. But we are back on stream. We believe PetroCan is a fine instrument and we shall be doing our best to make it a larger and more viable company, to allow it to move into areas into which it has not moved before so as to develop new sources of oil and gas, and also to act as an umbrella for other energy problems.
We are very pleased the government has announced that there will be an alternate energy corporation. This may begin under Petro-Canada, it may be entirely separate, but it is extremely important that we should have an alternate energy corporation. We are very pleased the Speech from the Throne contains such an undertaking.
I think there is a very serious problem within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which has to do with the whole notion of conservation. It seems to me that we must deal with that notion at much greater length than we have until now. It fits in with my thinking of the new world into which we are moving. I am not sure that the Department of

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. McRae
Energy, Mines and Resources, functioning as it does now mainly as a department of energy supply, is giving sufficient attention-here I am referring to both governments, not to one or the other-to a reduction in demand, to the conservation that is necessary. It seems to me that the whole alternate energy field as well as the conservation field is a new field we must develop, and perhaps at some point that field should be put under a separate ministry or organized in a somewhat different way so that there is a prime requirement in the area of alternate energy.
I think the throne speech has made a very valuable contribution to the future of Canadian energy in the statement on the blended price notion, that we are trying to develop a long-term pricing system which suits the people of Alberta and also meets the needs of all Canadians.
At the beginning of my speech I alluded to the kind of world into which I think we are moving and the kinds of concerns we have. I indicated that some of the problems which would seem to be almost insoluble were related to our economy. Certainly the Canadian economy is facing very difficult times.
First, 1 should like to get rid of the notion which seems to be coming from the other side that the budget which was defeated in December and which was a tough budget was one which we were not tough enough to take, that it was ridiculous for us to throw out that budget because we were going to have to bring in the same kind of budget. 1 can accept that it was tough, there is no question about that, but it was also foolish. I cannot believe that a government whose major concern in the budget was inflation would set in front of this Parliament an 18 cents excise tax which would have increased the inflation rate in this country by 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent. Most economists would agree that it would have had that very effect. There was no problem on this side with the idea that the government should raise more money or reduce the deficit-we did not dispute that fact. But we do dispute the fact that you have to increase the inflation rate by 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent to achieve that aim.
I think that was a basic difference between our outlook and theirs. The point was not that we would not have accepted a tough budget; the point was that it was a foolish thing to do, something that did not make sense in terms of the time or in terms of the expectations of Canadians.


Paul Edmund McRae: I went to the Canadian electorate. I do not know whether there was deceit in this or it just happened, but people adopted the idea that gasoline prices must go up and that the 18 cents was going to contribute in some way to providing more gasoline. That was not true. This was straight general revenue. I find it very difficult day in and day out to say this. Let us accept that we did not defeat the government because they gave us a tough budget. We defeated it because the 18 cents excise tax did not make sense.
We have been faced, in the last two years at least, with interest rates that are exceptionally high and that have grown, certainly in the last 12 to 15 months, to a point where they are creating some very serious problems in the Canadian economy. I am not satisfied that either our government or the Conservative government has attacked this in a total way, and 1 am pleased that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) wants to know more and hear more alternate suggestions.


Paul Edmund McRae: He has not heard anything to listen to. I am not convinced that the problems being caused to home owners, to small businessmen and to the home construction industry have been tackled correctly. In my community a good, medium-sized engineering firm has no business whatsoever. There is no one coming and saying, "I want to think about this; I have an idea that we should build so and so." That is not happening. There is a basic stoppage at the very basis of our construction trade. These are very serious problems. I hope this problem goes away but I do not think the answers are good enough. I do not think it is good enough to say that we will try to help those who cannot survive otherwise. I commend the government for going that far but I think we are going to have to do more.
I was very concerned during the Thirty-first Parliament about the rationale for high interest rates. We were talking about high inflation rates and comparing the United States and Canada. We said that since interest rates were high in the United States, therefore Canada must have high interest rates. When we in the finance committee met with Mr. Bouey in late


An hon. Member:: He does not listen.


An hon. Member:: How about the Gallup poll?


Paul Edmund McRae: It has nothing to do with the Gallup poll. You were pushing us like mad. But the point is that the 18 cents tax did not make sense because it would have increased inflation by 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 16, 1980

October, 1 was not satisfied with his answers at all because, basically speaking, when I took the real interest rate-that is the prime rate minus the inflation rate-or when I took the deflated real interest rate, I found that Canada had by far the highest real interest rate of all the members of the summit Group of Seven, of which we are part. Ours was 5.5 per cent. 1 do not have the figures in front of me for that period, but in March the figure was 5.5 per cent, in the United States it was 2.75 per cent to 3.75 per cent, in West Germany 4.75 per cent, in Japan 1.50 per cent and so on. So we were way up there. What I am saying is that someone who actually lends money in this country is doing much better than if they lent money in the United States or some of the other countries, because their real interest rate is considerably higher.
When I pursued the subject, Mr. Bouey said that we can anticipate higher inflation rates because oil prices are going to go up. There was some kind of hint at that time that we were going to have the 18 cents tax. It concerned me, but I was reasonably satisfied when the government decided to let the interest rates float because I felt that at that point we would find out really about the theory that we needed high interest rates to go as high as they did, in spite of the fact that we had high real interest rates; and, of course, they went up a little higher.
I am beginning to wonder what has been happening. I was rather surprised, and I must admit I should have looked at this earlier, when I had a look at the money supply in this country.
I began to see that the real money supply, that is the actual nominal money supply with the deflator factor, in the last 12 months was in the order of 2.6 per cent. It dropped to about
2.6	per cent. In other words, just looking at the average money supply, Ml-which is the one accepted by the government, and there is no time to argue whether or not that is right-we find that it increased by 6.8 per cent last year, but the consumer price index increased by 9.4 per cent. So there is a
2.6	per cent loss there in actual money supply. I have asked the Minister of Finance if he will take another good look at what is happening to the M1 and also what is happening to our real interest rates and whether there is not some justification at this particular point for increasing the money supply, at least up to the point-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I must inform him that his allotted time has expired.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, first 1 should like to compliment the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for the excellence of their maiden speeches as mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne. We do not always agree with newcomers, but they had points to make and they both made them extremely well during the course of their speeches.
I intend to speak on defence later in this speech, but in view of the time constraint, with a 15-minute bell I understand
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
starting at 5.45 p.m., I will just make a few introductory remarks and ask to carry on tomorrow.
Perhaps this might be a good time to mention the fact that the new fighter aircraft contract was finally signed today. I was rather dismayed that the new government decided not to announce either the selection of the aircraft or the signing of the contract by a statement on motions which would enable the opposition to cross-examine the ministers, something which they do not seem to accept very kindly. However, it was signed today. I believe they signed for the right aircraft. That was our position. I think the F-18A was the better of the two aircraft and came closer to fulfilling the needs of Canada's armed forces.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: 1 think I heard a little interjection from the NDP. I was rather amused to hear their defence critic suggest that this should be transferred over to a standing committee to make the choice between the two aircraft. I expect that they were thinking of the Standing Committee on National Defence and External Affairs. The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) is well known for her position about military matters which runs exactly counter to the leader of her party. Perhaps it would have been a grand opportunity for the NDP to sort themselves out and find out whether they wanted a plane at all or, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved last fall, that we should not have a plane. The meetings of the committee struck to choose between these two aircraft would have been very peculiar. Asking the NDP, particularly those two members, to choose between those two aircraft is rather like asking Truman Capote to judge the Miss America contest.


Miss Jewett:: We did not want either.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: While we are speaking so often on the referendum in this throne speech debate, I should like to point out that the unseemly sight of members of Parliament from Quebec and Ontario quarrelling over which province will have 50 per cent of this contract and which province will have 40 per cent rather dismays members of Parliament from the far reaches of the country. It does not really impress the people from the four western provinces, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or the Atlantic provinces, that 10 per cent should be considered the normal allotment for those eight provinces and the other two territories. I am glad that has died out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I hope it would be in order if 1 were now to call it 5.45 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(3), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put any question to dispose of the subamendment which is now before the House.

April 16, 1980
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
The question is, therefore, on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Broadbent). All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
It being past six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1 1 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 6.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 17, 1980