1980-04-17

[Stage Direction]
I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
Thai this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in conjunction with the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to forthwith issue regulations and detail with respect to the home insulation program, extending that program to all homes built prior to 1975, so that home owners will know for certain the meaning of the promises set out in the Speech from the Throne and will be able to plan to have this necessary work done as soon as possible.
['No.\nS)']
Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?



Mr. Bill J. Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing urgency. In view of the fact that Canadian natural gas exports to the United States have resulted in substantial economic benefits to Canada, and recognizing the importance of additional exports in promoting the construction of the prebuilt section of the Alaska gas transmission line, and in view of the fact that surface and in situ gasification of coal is now technically workable as well as economically feasible, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House instruct the government to request the National Energy Board to consider the gasification of Canada's vast coal reserves as a long-term supplement and back-up to present proven natural gas reserves in arriving at the conditions for additional exports of natural gas to the United States.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The home heating season is just about finished for this winter period. Home owners and insulation contractors now wish to be able to organize their affairs so that they can insulate properties and take advantage of the savings attributable to better insulation. In the Speech from the Throne there was passing reference to measures to be introduced to encourage higher standards of home insulation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARKS CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the recent decision of the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment, responsible for Parks Canada, to review the previous government's decision to move the Parks Canada regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough, in light of the current unrest among civil servants affected by that decision to put the move under review, because of the financial commitments undertaken by the former government to lease office facilities in Peterborough, in view of the actions of the public and separate school boards in Peterborough county to offer French immersion programs to the children of Francophone employees moving from Cornwall to Peterborough, and due to other plans undertaken by the city of Peterborough and the county of Peterborough to receive these employees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That the minister be directed by this House to confirm to all parties that this relocation of the Parks Canada, Ontario regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough will proceed as scheduled, in order that the employees might continue with the enrolment of their children in school and take possession of their homes in the Peterborough area, as put in place by the Conservative government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 17, 1980


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) will be in Washington for discussions tomorrow with the United States government regarding acid rain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
O)
That this government express to the United States government the Canadian government's determination to pursue vigorously strategies for the control of acid rain, and that the Canadian government convey to the United States government the unanimous support of this House for the early conclusion of an agreement between Canada and the United States for the abatement of acid rain, which the former minister of the environment, the hon. member for Vancouver South, called "the worst environmental danger Canada has ever faced."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I too, have a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government has constructed a temporary Customs clearance facility at the Regina airport, but because the federal government refuses to pay overtime to Customs clearance staff, early morning and weekend charter flights returning to Regina have been diverted to Winnipeg to clear Customs-which probably costs about 100 times more than the overtime-adding two hours to the travel time of passengers and wasting 900 gallons of fuel for each plane diverted, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House calls on the government to provide Customs clearance service for all flights needing these services at any time of day at the Regina airport.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the urgent need for Indian band financing, and because the federal government six years ago collected certain band funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the government immediately repay Indian bands their share of the oil export tax.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the premier of Nova Scotia requested a meeting this week with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), that the minister refused this meeting, that the purpose of such a meeting was to discuss the necessity of a grant to modernize the facilities at the Sydney Steel Corporation plant, and in view of the fact that the Liberal party promised during the last election campaign to provide $50 million to modernize the plant, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the minister meet with the premier of Nova Scotia immediately to discuss this matter; and that this government keep its campaign promise to provide at least $50 million for modernization of the plant.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that Bill C-28, which was introduced by the Conservative government last December to benefit Canada's war veterans' widows, given the fact the filibustering of the NDP and Liberals in the last Parliament prevented it from becoming law, and given the
April 17, 1980

fact that these deliberate and constant delays should not be borne on the back of the veterans, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this government immediately reintroduce Bill C-28 in its entirety and make its benefits retroactive to December 6, 1979, when the bill was first introduced by the hon. member for Victoria.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that a major part of the economy of Salmon Arm, B.C., is dependent upon access to the waters of Shuswap Lake and access is presently not available via the federal wharf due to the natural silting-in process, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House immediately instruct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to initiate action to ensure the shipping channel is dredged before the high water of the spring freshet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
S)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jake  F.pp@Provencher: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The present oil pricing agreement expires on July 1, which obviously raises the need for new agreement by that date. Can the minister tell the House whether or not negotiations have begun with the producing provinces and, if not, have dates been finalized for the commencement of negotiations with those provinces?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting with the ministers of energy from the producing provinces very
Oral Questions
shortly after my appointment. We conducted exploratory discussions at that time. I have been in touch with the provinces since, and our plan is to get in touch once again and meet in the next few weeks, hopefully in the early part of May.


Mr. Epp:: Madam Speaker, we are aware of the exploratory meetings which the minister had with the producing provinces and the ministers responsible. But I specifically asked him if dates have been set for negotiations to commence, in view of the fact there are but a few months left prior to the July I deadline. Further, has the minister presented any federal proposals, in terms of either supply or price, to the producing provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I indicated in my reply to the previous question that a meeting would be scheduled for early May. The date will be set by mutual agreement with the provinces concerned and, at that time, we will take up the specific study of certain aspects which could constitute the basis for a new oil pricing agreement.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the minister's answer again proves that things are very nebulous and that their policies have not been nailed down, with only two months from May 1 before the expiration of the present agreement. Neither the Speech from the Throne nor the minister's address to the House yesterday made any real commitment to energy selfsufficiency, particularly oil self-sufficiency, for Canada.
Is energy self-sufficiency a goal of this government, or has the minister concluded that the present policies of this government, whatever they may be, will not give us self-sufficiency? If, in fact, self-sufficiency is their goal, can the minister give us a date when he hopes to attain that goal?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, of course self-sufficiency is a goal of this government, but 1 do not intend to give phony dates, like the previous government, which they could not obviously uphold.


Miss MacDonald:: You do not even try.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: it is of deep concern to every Canadian taxpayer as well as to Canadian auto workers.
Is the minister aware that the, Volkswagen Corporation plans to expand its operations in the United States, and that the American government is now negotiating with Honda and Datsun to build plants in the United States? If so, would he not agree that unless these companies' operations are brought
94

April 17, 1980
Oral Questions
within the framework of a revised Canada-U.S. automotive agreement very soon, the results for Canada can be devastating both in the loss of thousands of jobs and in a major increase in what is now an automotive trade deficit of over $3 billion?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, it is our intention, when we begin our formal consultations with the United States on the auto pact, to raise the whole matter of the third country imports as well as our interests with respect to the Canadian automotive industry. We also want to deal with the matter of increased activity in Canada by these third countries.
I also want to inform the House that this coming Monday 1 will be meeting in Ottawa with the special trade representative of the United States, Ambassador Askew. One of the items on the agenda will be this very matter.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, talks at this level have been going on for many years between the Government of Canada and officials of the United States. Considering not only the information I have just mentioned, about expansion of non-North American plants in the U.S. which are going to cause us serious problems, considering the announcement today by General Motors of thousands of lay-offs in both countries, and Ford's announcement yesterday of thousands of lay-offs in both countries, will the minister not now seize the opportunity of this genuine crisis in the industry to arrange a meeting at the top level, including the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs and himself, to get a renegotiated pact in place by the end of this year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we began with a series of meetings 1 have been holding with the presidents of Canadian companies, within days of the new government taking over, to carry out our commitment to have a better automotive industry in Canada-


An hon. Member:: It is really working well.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and we intend to proceed as quickly as possible to do something that has not been done before by the previous Conservative government or previous Liberal governments, that is, to have formal consultations under the relevant clause of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement.
1 am glad to see that the hon. member recognizes that this is a North American crisis problem. We are treating it as such, because our priority is to preserve Canadian jobs and to create more Canadian jobs; and I hope to have the support for this of the hon. member and all members today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if it is a crisis for Canada, it is a crisis because for 12 years the Liberals did nothing up to this point in getting our share of these jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is why we have a crisis. I would like to ask the minister, in that context, since the profits of virtually every one of the North American automotive companies- Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, and American Motors-are all higher in Canada than in the United States, and since their production, with the exception of one company only, this year is not going to live up to its commitments under the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, will he promise Canadians today that the Government of Canada this year will compel them to live up to their commitments-at least for 1980?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are all glad that the hon. member and his party have suddenly remembered the plight of the auto workers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is something we have been concerned with since the outset and began working on as soon as we became the government. We are going to use the authority we have under the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement to preserve Canadian jobs and, hopefully, to add to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DATE OF SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN OIL
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A few moments ago he castigated this side of the House for our stating 1990 as the target date for achieving self-sufficiency. 1 would remind the minister that on March 21, in a Canadian Press interview, the Minister of State for Economic Development, in the other place, on the question of oil self-sufficiency stated, "It can and must be done before 1990".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Can the minister indicate whether that minister was indicating a desire, and how his policies on pricing and revenue-sharing would help Canada achieve self-sufficiency, if not by 1990 but at a date that he suggests is more appropriate?


An hon. Member:: Who is stating government policy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed the previous government had mentioned 1990 as the date, but the previous minister of energy had also indicated that by 1990 we would still be importing 250,000 barrels a day. This is why 1 said that this target set by the previous government was just a phony date which had no realistic basis.


An hon. Member:: It is your own minister in the Senate.
April 17, 1980


Marc Lalonde: As far as we are concerned, indeed we want self-sufficiency for Canada and we do hope and think that we can achieve it before 1990.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Who is the phony?


Marc Lalonde: If the current exploration off the east coast proves to be as encouraging as is thought, we might be able to reach that level much earlier than the most optimistic forecasts that were made by the Tories. But as far as we are concerned, I am not going to be tied to a specific date.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. During the election campaign, the minister described the Liberal pricing policy this way, as quoted in the January 29 edition of The Globe and Mail:
If the price of conventional is X, you will have a price of X plus Y for the non-conventional oil, and then the international price-you know what it is-but we have indicated we will continue to subsidize the price ... So what you would end up with would be a mix of these prices.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Harvie Andre: Since then the minister's statements have been more grammatical but no less clear-or no more clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Can the minister tell the House what his pricing formula is, and how his pricing formula will isolate Canada from increases in OPEC and Mexican prices?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I indicated in our preliminary and later discussions with my colleagues of the various provinces that 1 had no intention of dealing in speculation about specific figures, neither here in the House nor elsewhere.


COMPENSATORY MEASURES RESPECTING LAPRADE HEAVY WATER PLANT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to bring up an old story, that of the compensatory measures negotiated with the then government several months ago concerning the Laprade heavy water plant entailing compensation of some $200 million negotiated between the Quebec and federal governments. Does the minister intend to deal swiftly with this matter and settle it once and for all since, to my mind, it is certainly justified?


Marc Lalonde: The matter was discussed with the former Liberal government and, more particularly, with the then minister of finance, now the Minister of Justice.
Ora! Questions
I have received a letter from the Quebec energy minister and I am now looking into the situation and more recent developments. 1 shall be pleased to advise the hon. member of any further developments in that regard.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that we had already agreed and accepted to settle those compensatory measures of roughly $200 million, under certain conditions dealing, for example, with the saving of energy, would the minister assure us that he will recommend to the Minister of Finance the payment of those $200 million since the minister knows quite well that we will have to say yes from time to time if we want to get as massive a No vote as the Prime Minister hopes for?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we did discuss a compensatory $200 million formula when we were in power and, as he also indicated, there were certain conditions related to the matter; and that is what we are considering at present.


EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I want to ask whether he maintains the position he took on December 6 last in opposition to the export of natural gas to the United States. In particular, does he believe-and I quote him- "everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered, particularly the financing plan ... for the whole Alaska pipeline .. . before we start exporting one cubit foot of gas out of this country to the United States". Is that still the position of this government, or his own particular position as minister?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware that we have received a number of proposals calling for an increase in gas exports, or even for some amendments to the agreement we had signed when we were in power. We have decided to postpone any action concerning this until we can obtain much clearer indications as to what the Americans intend to do than those the previous government could obtain. We want to get firm assurances that the Alaska pipeline project will be started.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, if that is intended to elucidate the position, I am afraid it does not accomplish that particular end. In terms of the minister's policy with regard to natural gas, on March 4, shortly after being sworn in to his present position, he made the statement that one of his first priorities would be to introduce an export tax on natural gas. Is that a statement of government policy, and does it continue to be so?

April 17, 1980
96________________________________
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not recall ever having made such a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member has such a quote, I would like to see it. But this is not part of government policy.

&tu (1130)


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the 1978-79 Auditor General's report indicates that the spending of the government is not under control and recommends improved information to Parliament as one part of a remedy, and since the Comptroller General was asked by the public accounts committee on March 8, 1979, to review the topic of improved information for Parliament, as suggested by the Lambert commission and several other government reports, with a mandate to report back to the committee no later than December of 1980, will the minister assure the House that the original deadline will be met and that progress reports will be issued as the report proceeds?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the original deadline cannot be met by reason of a series of events that have taken place-changes of government, and so on-but I can assure hon. members that the improvement of financial information to Parliament is a priority item for Treasury Board.
I have had frequent discussions with the Comptroller General on this subject and we shall, 1 hope, be presenting experimental forms of estimates later this year for the following fiscal period. So the program is delayed, but it is moving ahead efficiently now and 1 think the hon. member's request will be satisfied in the current year.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Since this is a priority item in the view of the government, and taking into consideration the fact that the public accounts committee is already overburdened with work, will the minister refer reports and recommendations aimed at improving information to Parliament to a special committee of the House which would be struck for the sole purpose of providing recommendations to Parliament for improving the efficiency and accountability of government?


Donald James Johnston: The question covers a variety of points, Madam Speaker. 1 think I answered the question with respect to the form of the estimates, and we shall be happy to furnish progress reports in that regard.
With respect to the over-all position, the hon. member may be aware of the IMP AC studies being conducted by the Comptroller General in nearly every major department of government. These surveys are being completed; we hope to
complete all of them this year in the 27 departments. Plans for action are being agreed upon with those departments and I would say this program is moving ahead very effectively-I believe the Comptroller General will agree with me.


CONSULTATIONS ON PRICE OF SYNCRUDE OIL
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the hon. gentleman advise the House whether or not he consulted with all nine partners of the Syncrude agreement prior to his unilateral announcement fixing the price of Syncrude oil, and will he provide detailed information as to the time, place and extent of that consultation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I did not consult the nine partners in the business. This was a government decision and it has to be taken. However, 1 did discuss this issue with the minister of energy from Alberta on March 17, in Edmonton, and also around March 26, by telephone.


Jack Wendele Shields: I find it difficult to believe that an agreement made by this government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Will the hon. member please ask his question?


Jack Wendele Shields: Recognizing the total disruption to the tar sands industry, the uncertainty that has been created with regard to their development, and the resulting economic hardship to small businesses in Fort McMurray, Cold Lake and Bonnyville.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please ask his question very soon.


Jack Wendele Shields: Yes, 1 will.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Jack Wendele Shields: Thank you. Madam Speaker. I am asking the question. In view of the number of small businesses that have gone bankrupt, will the minister inform the House whether an analysis was carried out to determine the cost, not only to the economy of the local communities but to the Canadian economy, of a minimum of a one-year delay in the development of the Alsands project and the project at Cold Lake?


Marc Lalonde: I am afraid the hon. member has not been well informed as to what the decision has been. The decision has been not to tie, in future, increases in the price paid for tar sands oil to international prices. 1 have a statement here by the president of Suncor which reads as follows; I am sure it will interest the hon. member: "Suncor will continue to receive the
April 17, 1980

present price until a new pricing agreement has been reached, so there is no immediate impact on our earnings from this decision."
In effect, this means that the tar sands plants are receiving, at the present time, the same price as they were receiving in the past, and I have indicated that while negotiations are taking place with the producing province we intend to continue to pass on the necessary increases which would come under the formula. So nothing has changed, except it has been clearly indicated to the companies concerned that in the future we will not be tied to the international price or to the price fixed by OPEC which, as hon. members know, is the equivalent of an international cartel.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a brief supplementary. I would preface it by asking the minister, if he was quoting from a formal document and not from a press clipping, whether he would follow the rules of the House and lay it on the Table.
My question has to do with the so-called consultation with the producing provinces. Would the minister confirm that what he and the Prime Minister the other day referred to as consultation was, in fact, a telephone call of advice to the minister of energy of Alberta roughly one hour before the decision which had already been taken was communicated to the press?


Marc Lalonde: As to the first point, if the Leader of the Opposition is interested, I will table the copy of The Globe and Mail of April 17 in which this statement is reported. 1 am sure the Leader of the Opposition has full confidence in The Globe and Mail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As to the second part of the question, I want to advise the Leader of the Opposition I had an extensive exchange of views with the minister of energy for Alberta on March 17 and I phoned him on March 26, I believe, which was two days before the announcement was made; if I remember well it was made on March 28.


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance; it concerns the consumer price index which was announced this morning by Statistics Canada, showing that the price of basic products such as home heating fuel has gone up by 19.5 per cent, year over year, and dairy products by 14.5 per cent, year over year.
Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether it is still his view that the way to fight this kind of inflation is by having 20 per cent interest rates, when there is increasing evidence from a
Oral Questions
number of observers that pouring gasoline on interest rates only fuels inflation rather than fighting it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: The hon. member has asked for my views on inflation. There are a number of aspects to my views which I could not possibly put forward during the question period.


An hon. Member:: Bring down a budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One of my jobs as Minister of Finance is to fight off proposals which would add to the inflationary pressures in this country. I am grateful to the House of Commons that the proposal put forward by the hon. member's leader, which was inflationary and, if accepted, would add an immediate and appreciable increase in prices to Canadians for food, clothing, transportation and other commodities, was rejected. That is one view 1 would like to convey to the hon. member, but I do not want to accept the outlandish proposals his party is putting forward at the present time.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that clear and frank reply to my question which, 1 am sure, will clear the air for those Canadians who are very concerned about knowing the direction of government policy. The government is running on a unique blend of fog and cynicism, which has become its characteristic.
1 wonder if the minister can give us a guarantee that consumers who are being so hard hit, not only by inflation but also by interest rates-which are contributing to inflation and not fighting it-will be protected in an economic statement, a budget or whatever the minister wants to call it, as soon as possible by means of a cost of living tax credit or some similar device to ensure that those Canadians who can least afford it are protected from the effects of inflation and higher interest rates, which are now clearly the policy of his government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously one of the objectives of the government is to cushion every possible group, and particularly those groups which need protection most, against the effects of inflation. We have announced in the Speech from the Throne that the government does not wish to revive the 18-cent excise tax on gasoline, which would have been quite inflationary.
We have announced in the Speech from the Throne that we intend to introduce as quickly as possible the guaranteed income supplement, which will be of major assistance to the elderly in this country who are suffering from the effects of inflation. We have already indicated that we are taking steps to assist home owners to meet this particular crisis-


An hon. Member:: What are they?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -as a result of extraordinarily high interest rates. So I tell the hon. member that these are three immediate proposals which are designed to meet and cushion the effect of inflation in this country.

April 17, 1980
Oral Questions STATISTICS CANADA


EXPECTED TABLING OF CERTAIN REPORTS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I wonder if he can indicate to the House whether he has been confirmed as the minister responsible for Statistics Canada for at least the coming months and, if so, when may we expect him to table the three reports which have now been concluded dealing with Statistics Canada, namely, the Newcombe report, the Price Waterhouse report and the Sir Claus Moser report?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do have responsibility for Statistics Canada. I hope to table the Price Waterhouse report and the Sir Claus Moser report within the next several days.
With respect to the Newcombe report, I have already indicated that it was not my intention to table it because of some of the personal references which are contained in it, but that I would be pleased to make it available to spokesmen of opposition parties who would like to review its contents. I am prepared to reconsider my position on that, if they insist that it also be tabled.
Mir. Stevens: Madam Speaker, 1 would like the minister to reconsider his decision not to table the full Newcombe report, but I also ask when he might indicate to the House what remedial action he intends to take with respect to Statistics Canada.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the situation at Statistics Canada is now the direct responsibility of Mr. Larry Fry, who is the chief statistician acting under a short mandate. He has already studied the reports and is taking remedial action in the area of management improvement and some of the areas which were recommended in the Price Waterhouse report. I will be making a further statement at the time I table the report which, as I indicated, should be within the next several days.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I would like to return to the general topic of the Olympic boycott. Apart altogether from what the Prime Minister perceives to be the effects of a boycott on the Russian people and the Russian government, and apart altogether from what any other country does, is the time not long overdue when the Prime Minister should assert the moral authority of his office and lead the Canadian people by concrete action, as opposed to sanctimonious statements-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Chris Speyer: -and that we as a country should take the view that we are not going to Moscow?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said "No".


Mr. Crosbie:: He said "No".


Chris Speyer: Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Chris Speyer: Sorry, Madam Speaker. Do you appreciate-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member should remember that he must address the Chair.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister appreciates the symbolism to our people of a strong stand with respect to the Olympic boycott independent of other countries and independent, even, of the effect that it might have on Russians. Does the Prime Minister appreciate the symbolism of that to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member. If he thinks that symbolism is just for the sake of symbolism and, in the terms of his own question, has no effect on the Soviet Union, then indeed 1 disagree with him.
* *
*


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. While I am aware that the business of the House is important and that it is urgent to dispose of it, and although the No team is gaining wider support from Quebeckers in all regions, I should like to know if the President of the Privy Council has obtained from the opposition parties an agreement which would allow us, as Quebec elected members, to be more visible and active during the referendum campaign. I know, Madam Speaker, that all men and women in Canada generally, but more specifically in Quebec, are anxious to know what part we will play if-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question.
April 17, 1980


Maurice Dupras: Madam Speaker, my question is this: I would like to know whether the opposition parties have agreed to a pairing system or any other arrangement which would allow hon. members from the province of Quebec to be more active and more present in the province during the referendum campaign?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, it is true that we face a double task in the next few weeks: to deal with an extensive legislative program while at the same time getting involved in and supporting the No forces during the referendum campaign in Quebec.
Personally, Madam Speaker, I am confident that all members of the House will be willing to dispose of the accumulated legislative work in a spirit of co-operation and good will, as required by His Excellency the Governor General in the Speech from the Throne. In any case, negotiations have already been initiated with the parliamentary leaders of the opposition parties, and I am confident that satisfying agreements will be reached, enabling us to deal with the House legislative program within reasonable time while at the same time finding ways to allow hon. members, particularly those from Quebec, to go campaigning. This would be done by postponing votes, if need be, or by organizing the work in such a way that we can contribute, directly or indirectly, to the success of the No forces in Quebec and ensure the unity of Canada.
* *
*


EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I want to return to the matter of energy self-sufficiency and put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I think the minister might agree with me that one way to energy self-sufficiency might be to keep our natural gas for our own use.
When he was the Liberal opposition energy critic, he told this House that exports of natural gas to the United States should not be authorized unless there is an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline: those were the minister's words. Now that he is in a position to do something about that, could he tell this House what he meant by "an ironclad commitment?"


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I had a meeting with the Secretary of Energy from the United States very shortly after my appointment. I reviewed the whole situation with him. I passed
Oral Questions
on to the American authorities the concern of this government about the delays that were being faced concerning the firm and final decision by the United States authorities on the construction of the Alaska gas pipeline. The Secretary of Energy of the United States indicated that his government now was convinced that the project should go, and that he was pushing very strongly with the private partners in the United States who are responsible for the project, so that this project indeed proceeds.
Very shortly, I am meeting-tomorrow, I believe-with one of the main private sponsors in the United States about this particular project in order to get a full report of the most recent meeting which has taken place. I am keeping very much on top of this question in order to be fully aware of developments, and the government will have to make a decision later on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, let me remind the minister that Parliament put an ironclad guarantee into the Northern Pipeline Act of 1978 when Parliament indicated that one cannot prebuild this pipeline without an ironclad guarantee of financing. Yet last week the minister's government allowed the National Energy Board to open up this whole question and to open up the possibility of the pipeline company prebuilding without that guarantee.
Before there is any change in the Northern Pipeline Act, before he lets them prebuild the southern portion and take Canadian gas to the Americans without a guarantee of the northern portion being built, will the minister assure the House that he will come back to the House and get permission from the House of Commons to make any changes to that act?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, no change has been made to the Northern Pipeline Act, and obviously no change would be made to the act without coming to Parliament. What the National Energy Board is doing at the present time is holding hearings under the authority the Energy Board has under legislation passed by Parliament.


NEB REVIEW OF GAS EXPORT DECISION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On December 7, 1979, he described the gas export decision of the National Energy Board, and I quote him, "as one of the biggest sellouts in Canadian history".


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Does he still hold that view and if he does, is it an explanation of why he is using the Energy Board to review this matter, for the purpose of saving his own face with respect to that statement?

April 17, 1980
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, certainly I said what the hon. member quoted, and 1 still believe, indeed, that that was the wrong decision made by the government at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Without knowing anything about it.


IMPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL FROM MEXICO
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he concludes his conversation with the socialists to the left.
In view of the upcoming agreement between Canada and Mexico with respect to the importation of crude from that country, can the minister shed some light on the situation with respect to the capacity of eastern refineries to handle that portion of imports which will fall into the category of heavy crude?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, when an agreement is reached with Mexico, we will be in a position to comment on the details arising out of that agreement.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It was all ready for signing in January.


Marc Lalonde: At the present time, discussions are taking place with the Mexican authorities. No agreement has been signed yet, and I will not comment until we have that agreement.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, what happened?


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, 1 am left with the impression that the minister is not aware that there will be a mixture of heavy and light crudes and that we have no refining capacity whatsoever in Atlantic Canada for heavy crude. If that is their way to self-sufficiency, they are on the wrong track.
My supplementary question has two points to it. The former government had agreed in principle to extend required financial aid to the companies involved in the refining. I wonder if the government is prepared to indicate whether they would honour that commitment; and, second, whether or not in the negotiations with Mexico a firm understanding has been arrived at, or is being pursued, with respect to movement in Canadian ships of that imported crude.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see that the hon. member is aware of the nature of the refineries in Nova Scotia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the agreement is concerned, again, and the consequences arising out of the agreement, we will comment once the agreement has been reached and signed.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will be raising a question of privilege at twelve o'clock.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Laverne Lewyeky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General. In view of the numerous requests that many rural members of Parliament have received for the retention of rural Saturday post office service, could the minister advise this House whether or not his government is intending to continue the policy of the previous Conservative government in closing down rural post offices on Saturdays?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that we will not go ahead with such reductions in services without first consulting the elected representatives of this Parliament as well as the representatives of local associations of postmasters and their assistants.


Laverne Lewycky: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Has the minister conducted, or does he intend to do so, any studies on the economic and social hardships that Saturday closing of rural post offices would present to rural communities?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, such a study can certainly be carried out. As Postmaster General, I can right now assure the hon. member that my policy will not be to cut back this service on Saturdays and 1 do not think, either, that it is the intent of the present Liberal government.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, although the Minister of Supply and Services might wish to reply, concerning a contract which was signed yesterday.
Considering that the inflation rate has risen very sharply in the United States recently, and in the matter of the F-18A may have risen as much as 50 per cent in costs in two years, can either minister tell us how they can rationalize their decision being made based on an assumed inflation rate of 8 per cent?
April 17, 1980


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, although there is a ceiling price which includes the 8 per cent, as the hon. gentleman is well aware, there is also provision that adjustments can be made from time to time in order to reflect the real inflation rate on a yearly basis.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Supply and Services could inform the House, apart from their contract, and if the worst comes to the worst in the United States, and the United States navy as well as the United States marine corps decides not to buy the F-18A, if they have a contingency plan of what Canada's action will be in that event.


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that we have every expectation that the number of aircraft that are contemplated as being produced by the manufacturer will indeed be produced. We have every assurance that even the numbers which have been contemplated will be surpassed and that Canada's position will be enhanced as a result.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of continuing crises in Canada's health care system, such as those brought on by the refusal of provincial governments to meet their share of needed health care funds, with the possibility of a nurses' strike in Alberta being the latest result of provincial stinginess, can the minister tell the House what she intends to do about this problem before Justice Hall's report comes down this summer?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I studied carefully, Madam Speaker, the possible lines of action before the recommendations are made to us by Justice Hall on putting medicare back to where it should be in every part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: With the state of the matter when we came back to the government, we concluded that it was best not to interfere with the ongoing public hearings, to let the public see more facts and to let Justice Hall and the people he has gathered around him in his team, Mr. Malcolm Taylor and others, do their work and make recommendations to the government which could be, I hope, ideas other than just the two heavy legal tools left to us in today's legislation on medicare.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. That was an answer that was unacceptable to the Minister of National Health and Welfare when it was given to
Privilege-Miss MacDonald
her in the last Parliament by the Conservative government, and it is unacceptable to me now.
In view of Liberal party commitments during the election campaign to discourage health care premiums, deterrent fees and extra billing, would the minister indicate what she intends to do now to reduce the cost of health care for individual Canadians which, according to the consumer price index, rose 1.7 per cent in the last month?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is forgetting a few facts of life. The commission existed: we did not create it; the Conservative government created it. Do you prefer to have the work of the commission cancelled? My common sense tells me, no: the commission should be supported in its work, and that is the decision we made.
Recommendations should be made to us by June 30. In the meantime, we have always said that the public must get involved and tell us if they want free health care. What did we do? We tried to put the facts to the public. But what happened? In New Brunswick, for instance-am I not right-the Conservative government just withdrew their user fees they had put last year. Is that not a victory for medicare?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. Paul Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in response to a question put by the hon. member for Vancouver East yesterday, I would like to report that the difference, or shortfall, between allocation and express demand for non-profit starts for 1980 is 6,089, and for co-ops it is 2,978. 1 cannot confirm allocation increase for this year, but I am considering it as a device to try to take some of the heat out of the tight rental market.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
miss Macdonald-Moscow Olympics-request letter be

Madam Speaker:: Order. Yesterday the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) rose on a question of privilege to ask that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) table a copy of a letter sent by him to President Carter to which he referred during the question period on Tuesday, April 15, 1980. While the Prime Minister is at liberty to table this letter if he chooses to do so, I must point out to the House that there is no obligation upon him to table the letter, which he did not actually quote but to which he merely referred.
102

April 17, 1980
Business of the House
I may refer to certain rulings on similar questions, one of November 16, 1971, at page 9599 of Hansard by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, where he says:
In fairness, looking at the matter as objectively as 1 can, 1 do not see how it is possible for the Chair to make a ruling at this point that a document that has simply been referred to but has not been directly quoted should be tabled in debate. I find it difficult to rule otherwise. Hon. members may look at the citations that have been quoted in a very interesting and forceful way by the hon. members for Yukon and Peace River. They are clear to me. If a document has been actually cited or quoted in debate by a minister of the Crown, it has to be tabled. If only reference is made to it, 1 do not see how there can be an obligation to table it.
Therefore, 1 feel that the question of privilege should not be pursued at this time.


MR. FORRESTALL-ENERGY-ALLEGED INADEQUATE RESPONSES OF MINISTER
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of wholly inadequate responses by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to concerns in Atlantic Canada in respect of refining capabilities and the negotiations going on with Mexico regarding an energy agreement with that country.
My question of privilege arises from two points. First of all, 1 accept completely the right of treasury bench members not to answer questions if they choose not to, and I am not questioning that right; but my question of privilege has to do with the right of members in this chamber to be heard, not to be treated in the derogatory manner in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has treated this House and the people of Atlantic Canada.
1 do not ask that you make a ruling, Madam Speaker, but I would ask you to advise the Table that at the earliest opportunity I would like to take him to task for his arrogance toward eastern Canada and this chamber with regard to that negotiation at the appropriate time at ten o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: We have taken notice of this grievance and the hon. member realizes that it is not a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it being Thursday I would like to put the usual House business question to the government House leader. As part of House business, in view of your ruling on the point of order involving the correspondence between the Prime Minister and President Carter, and the reply of the Prime Minister, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to table the correspondence that was referred to in the ruling? 1 realize he is not required to, but from the point of view of clarity I wonder if he will table that correspondence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. 1 would be very happy in a question period to attempt again to clarify the substance of the Canadian government's policy, but I would not intend to table letters which are exchanged between heads of government.


Walter David Baker: 1 thank you very much. I do not want to interfere, but 1 wonder if the government House leader is prepared to tell us today the business of the House. 1 have particular reference to the continuance of the throne speech debate, at least at the outset. Perhaps he could answer that question first.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker. As the hon. member knows full well, we will have to deal urgently with legislative measures, some of which must be adopted before May 15. My learned colleague knows very well that supply proceedings do not apply since the estimates for this year could not be tabled in time. We have therefore been negotiating on that matter and 1 am confident that we will agree on a special order of business that will enable us to deal with supply in due course and grant the government interim supply for May 15.
Moreover, some technically urgent bills must be passed by May 15 and that is why we are looking at the possibility of cutting short the throne speech debate by the last two days, after the vote on Tuesday night. That is not final, but I shall inform the hon. member and also my colleague of the New Democratic Party in due time when we reach a decision. Again I give them notice that it is possible that the debate on the address in reply will be suspended so as to give the opposition parties enough time to examine and if need be challenge those measures, some of which must be passed before May 15 and others before June 30.
That is our frame of mind regarding the business for the next few days. I shall let the opposition House leaders know our final decision as soon as possible.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there is one further aspect. There is a bill on the order paper standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to amend the Old Age Security Act. Will that bill be called for first reading today and is it a priority bill for the government?
The second matter that I wanted to speak to today is with respect to the bill on veterans' benefits. I know that a bill is ready. Is the intention of the government to give notice of that bill and to call it quickly?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will have to look into the hon. member's last question. With regard to the GIS bill, it will be introduced very soon but not today, and it is a matter of priority for this government.
April 17, 1980


PRIVILEGE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege on a matter which arose during the course of the question period in answers given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). By way of background, I want to point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during the course of the election campaigning for this Parliament made statements to the effect that I, in the course of committee proceedings, had indicated that we would not attain energy self-sufficiency by 1990 and that we would be some 250,000 barrels short.
That particular proposition, as the minister knows full well, is incorrect and false. In the course of the discussions in that committee report it is clear that I indicated that, on the basis of existing policies, without natural gas substitution and conservation methods we would in fact be short by that number of barrels according to the best estimates of the department.
The minister has brought forward this particular proposition and statement and repeated it again and in my estimation he is misleading the House. This matter was independently reviewed by the press which, after reviewing the record, repudiated the position taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If the minister persists in repeating these untruths, he will gain the reputation of being the Pinocchio of Canadian politics.


Erik Nielsen: He almost is now.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made his case. I will be very happy to table in the House the transcript of the committee session where the statement made by the hon. member is recorded. The statement speaks for itself and I will not engage in a debate on its interpretation.
I would also like to say to my hon. colleague and friend from Dartmouth that he and I are far from being arrogant and are well known for our respective humility as well as our great interest and concern for eastern Canada. I hope that I will have his support in any measures which I bring forward to help the development and growth of eastern Canada, as we are all trying to do.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is obvious that the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was a good subject for a debate. It was a matter of opinion, so I do not think I can consider it as a question of privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Knowles


MR KNOWLES-OFFICIAL REPORT-ARTICLE IN THE OTTAWA JOURNAL
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in accordance with a notice which I sent to Your Honour this morning under the provisions of Standing Order 17(2). My question of privilege relates to an article in today's issue of The Ottawa Journal which, in my view, in an unwarranted attack on the editor and staff of the Hansard of the House of Commons.
There seems to be an attempt in this article to indulge in a certain amount of humour, but it starts off by saying:
Hansard lies.
Half way through the article it describes something that appeared in Hansard and then says:
Pack of lies.
Then toward the end the article contends that Hansard is:
-fooling with the facts-
It ends by saying that an effort should be made to:
-make it more accurate-
I am not rising to defend members in former Parliaments- it has not happened in this one-who may have tried to get changes in Hansard beyond genuine corrections. That is not the point. I am rising to defend the dedication and the hard work of our Hansard staff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We all know that they work under trying circumstances, especially during question period when there is a great deal of calling back and forth. It must be awfully hard for the reporters to get as much as they do. We know that they make a serious effort to turn out each day a Hansard that is an accurate report of what went on in this House of Commons.
I feel it is most unfair that these people, who work so hard for us and have no chance to defend themselves, are attacked in this way. I rise on behalf of all hon. members to defend the editor and staff of Hansard. Perhaps Your Honour might consider inviting the writer of this article to call upon the editor of Hansard who, I am sure, would be glad to show that writer the whole process.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure that the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be a comfort to the staff of Hansard who work under considerable pressure to give us these reports on time. I will pursue the suggestion of the hon. member.

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. McKinnon



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I wish to table under the appropriate standing order copies in both official languages of the agreement between the federal government and the Ford Motor Company dated October 23, 1978, relating to the Ford Essex engine plant. I also have copies for the opposition spokesmen.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 16, 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).
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, may 1 congratulate you upon your elevation to the high post you hold. I am certain you will grace the position and we look forward to a long tenure under your charge.
When the bell started ringing last night 1 was speaking on the Speech from the Throne and I had mentioned the new fighter aircraft contract which was signed yesterday. 1 have not quite finished my remarks about it so I will finish them before 1 get into the main part of my speech.
I would caution the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamon-tagne), who provided the money to pay for this contract, to watch that contract very carefully. We are living in very fluid times, particularly with regard to finances. 1 am curious about many matters regarding that contract but unfortunately, as I mentioned last night, the minister did not see fit to table the contract and make a statement on motions at the same time. When a statement is made on motions in the House, it gives opposition spokesmen and members on all sides the opportunity to grill the minister and ask a long series of questions. There must be 30 or 40 questions that members of this House would like to put to the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Supply and Services concerning that contract and the choice that was made. It takes weeks of questions to try and work through such a series of questions if we have to rely upon question period only. I hope this is not an indication that this government is going to return to their old style of not tabling documents and not making statements on motions procedures which help very much to clarify the business of the House and in fact to speed it up.
I would like to say a final word about the allocations to regions, which I mentioned last night. I would be very surprised if the NFA contract, when tabled, indicates that there is an allocation to regions of the work involved. I would be very surprised indeed. I cannot see how the government can dictate to the prime supplier that he must put so much work into any province or any region. This would give the supplier a wonderful opportunity to have cost overruns and then blame the government who directed that the work be put into certain regions. I expect that this will be done in the normal fashion by tender and by contract from the prime supplier to the subsuppliers.
That is all I should like to say about the new fighter aircraft at the present time, partly because there are so many questions that the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is hardly the place to try and get answers to such a multitude of questions.
I should like to refer for a moment to a remark made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House which startled me, to say the least. He was asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) if the government was considering a review by the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs. The startling answer given by the Prime Minister is recorded in Hansard at page 67 as follows:
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.
If the Prime Minister really believes that a study made in the late 1960s is appropriate for action in the 1980s, 1 wonder where he has been for the last ten years. 1 suppose he has been in the Langevin Building, surrounded by his sycophants over there, and is totally divorced from what is going on in the world. The Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence cannot stay in limbo or maintain the status quo for 12 years!
I asked one of my staff members to let me know a few of the things that have happened since the Prime Minister had the last study on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I might point out also that just a year ago the Hon. Barney Danson said he could well see the need for a white paper on defence and that he intended to move forward with it as soon as possible. Of course, it is an embarrassment for the government to have a majority; they do not care whether they study things or not and will just go their own way.
To return to those ten or 12 missing years in the Prime Minister's life when he was divorced from reality, I would point out a few events that occurred in that time. In 1968 the Soviet Union suppressed Czechoslovakia's spring uprising and invaded that country with massive forces, deposing Mr. Dub-cek's regime.
In 1970 the OPEC cartel for the first time forced foreign oil companies to concede increases in the posted price for oil. This was a change from the 50-50 policy that had held before that.
April 17, 1980

In that year the Hon. Mitchell Sharp presented a white paper on foreign policy to the House of Commons. That was the last one. As well, Willi Brandt commenced the "Ostpolitik" with the aim of recognizing East Germany.
It was in 1971 that the U.S.S.R. surpassed the United States in the number of land based missiles. In the same year Mr. Trudeau visited the U.S.S.R. and signed an agreement for consultation on foreign affairs similar to Soviet arrangements with France. I have not particularly heard about the consultations that have been going on but since they signed an agreement I assume such consultations have been going on. In that year the Indo-Pakistan war broke out after India invaded East Pakistan, which later became Bangladesh.
In 1972 President Nixon visited both Peking and Moscow, ending 23 years without U.S. diplomatic recognition of China. In that year the SALT I agreement was signed, as was the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
These are things that the Prime Minister thinks are not important enough to recognize or to cause us to look at what is going on in the world.
In 1973 the European Common Market expanded from six members to nine with the inclusion of Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark. In October the Arab-Israeli war broke out, followed by the imposition of the oil weapon by the Arab nations at that time. Also, NORAD was renewed between Canada and the United States.
It was in May, 1974, that India exploded their first nuclear device, using the technology obtained from a Canadian reactor. In July, Turkish forces invaded Cyprus causing Canada to send troops to that country. They are still there, 15 years later. In August President Nixon resigned as a result of Watergate. All this has escaped the attention of the Prime Minister.
In 1975, with the fall of Saigon and the collapse of the South Vietnamese government, the war in Vietnam ended. Surely this must make some difference to our thoughts on external affairs and to our thoughts on national defence. Certainly the Israel-Egypt war had a startling effect on the views of the Department of National Defence.
In 1975 came the war in Angola where the Soviets with Cuban help were victorious. The Soviets started building a missile base and handling facilities at Berbera in Somalia.
In 1976 the Soviets deployed the T-72 tank in Europe and completed their first aircraft carrier, the Kiev.
In 1977 the war between Vietnam and the Cambodian communist regimes erupted. Soviet intervention in the Horn of Africa intensified. They first backed Somalia and then switched to backing Ethiopia. The Cubans, as in Angola, did most of the fighting while the Soviets provided equipment and money.
In 1978 NATO agreed to increase defence expenditures in real terms by 3 per cent per annum for five years. The Iranian revolution began. In that year the U.S.S.R. deployed the SS-20 medium range missile in Europe. This, for the first time, gave them the advantage in western Europe. Their
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
missiles could hide behind the Ural Mountains in Russia and hit any target in western Europe. These were missiles that were transportable on their own, they were not from fixed installations. As opposed to that, the NATO nations' missiles could not even hit Russia from West Germany; they could only extend as far as covering satellite nations, such as East Germany.
In 1979 the Sino-Vietnamese border war started as well as the invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S.S.R. occurred. During all of this period our comatose Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) thought nothing was happening; there was no need to look at our defence again and no need to look at external affairs. One wonders what on earth we are going to do. In which direction are we going?
In national defence the budget is now at the $5 billion mark and I think the people of Canada who pay this $5 billion a year have a right to know where Canada is at the present time in the way of defence and where the government is planning to go. If the minister has no ideas on the matter-and there is much evidence that he has none-then I think that he should call for a white paper to clarify his own thoughts, if nothing else. But it would presumably give us a chance to see what is going to happen in the future and what the taxpayer is going to get for his $5 billion.
As far as I can tell, the present government has apparently decided to continue the policies which were enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1968. The Conservatives had planned to issue a white paper on defence in September this year. Given that we are to have no new policy guidance in foreign and defence affairs, we are faced with continued reliance on these tired old ideas of the Prime Minister and his exclusive clique of political senior public servants. It puzzles me that a reshuffling of old ideas would in any way serve the interests of the Canadian people, any more than the reshuffling in the corridors of power would produce anything but the same old mess, which was their sum total of achievement by May, 1979, after some 11 years of accumulated bureaucratic rule.
I would like to speak for a few minutes about this bureaucratic rule. Despite the Canadian tradition of parliamentary government that elected ministers should both make policy and jointly be held responsible for it to the Parliament of Canada, the present Prime Minister had by 1979 perfected a system in which the actual power to make policy was vested in his bureaucrats, and the departmental ministers answered for these policies to the House. They were given enough information that they could answer, or so that they could confuse their answers in the House, and it would appear that is the sum total of their duties.
This demonstration of what amounted to a sweeping contempt for the democratic process permitted the Prime Minister and his inner coterie of senior public servants, led by Mr. Pitfield, of course, to establish in effect a perversion of the cabinet system, especially noticeable in the field of foreign and defence policy. In fact, instead of a cabinet system there was a

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
Privy Council office system and ministers were apparently invited to append their signatures to documents which they had perhaps only a few minutes to read before they were submitted for formal consideration and ratification by cabinet.
Perhaps no other evidence of this Prime Minister's efforts to usurp the role of departmental ministers is needed than this so-called cabinet system of bureaucratic committees and endless paper flow which he had developed by 1979, in which a departmental minister's role was largely reduced to that of a glorified correspondence secretary.
The new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamon-tagne)-I am sorry that he is not in the Elouse but I feel certain that his duties elsewhere require him to be absent-has already begun to make statements and behave in a manner that should disturb all those who believe that the Department of National Defence deserves a minister who makes policy and takes decisions for himself, not simply acting as the mouthpiece for whomever the Prime Minister has entrusted in his inner circle with the role of making defence policy.
For example, in a recent interview the Minister of National Defence was reported to see no need for a new white paper on defence and stated that such studies were "complicated" and, yes, "boring". Furthermore, the minister was reported to believe that there was no need for a new white paper because he had been presented with so many excellent briefing papers by his officials. Let me say that if these papers of his are so good, the minister should offer to share them with other interested people, namely the taxpayers of this country and their elected representatives in Parliament.
As a member of the previous government I had pledged that we would write a new defence white paper by this fall, and I would challenge the present minister to name the date when he will reveal his government's policy concerning defence-if, of course, they have one.
Given the attitude of the minister toward a new white paper, which amounts really to an abdication of his responsibilities as the effective head of his department, it seems we are likely to be treated to a rerun of the last days of the previous Trudeau administration. 1 might point out that in the National Defence Act, I believe section 2 says that the Minister of National Defence is responsible for the Department of National Defence for its control and of the armed forces.
Some journalists have already detected a shift of the real power from the Department of External Affairs to the Prime Minister's office. Press releases are emanating from the PMO on foreign policy matters, and when journalists call the Department of External Affairs for details, the spokesmen for the department do not know anything about such policy decisions and have to phone the Prime Minister's office to learn what foreign policy is that day.
We are not so much assessing what the new Ministers of National Defence and External Affairs are now doing or are capable of doing in the future, but how the Prime Minister and his selected acolytes will handle defence and foreign policy.
For a good evaluation of the Prime Minister's early views one can turn to a recent book by journalist Peter Stursberg called "Lester Pearson and the American Dilemma". In this book some of the present Prime Minister's errors of omission and commission are recalled and the full betrayal of the Pearsonian legacy in foreign and defence policy is documented. In interviews with former Liberal ministers such as the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, the Hon. Paul Hellyer and the Hon. Leo Cadieux, it clearly points out the attitude the Prime Minister has toward cabinet government. When he first became Prime Minister he moved to initiate his review-the one that he thinks is still current-on both foreign and defence policy. He began his technique of using the Privy Council office and his own close advisers in the PMO to make policy rather than leaving this to the cabinet and the responsible departmental ministers.
The Hon. Paul Hellyer recalls the technique as quoted in Mr. Stursberg's book as follows:
In the early stages of the cabinet debates certainly the preponderant point of view was the status quo: Why change, we've got our troops there, they're doing a good job-
This is when he was speaking of the likelihood of cutting down on NATO. He went on:
Little by little, however, opinion changed, or at least it appeared to change, as the Prime Minister's views became privately known to more and more ministers-
-But in the event, as the days went by, you could see more and more of the leaners in cabinet lining up on the side of change and this was, in my opinion, the whole purpose of the exercise.
- It was rather interesting that the departmental view was just once again tossed aside, and it was after that, or at least, in so far as discussion was concerned, it was after that, the Ivan Head version, probably prepared in co-operation with the Prime Minister, was brought into the discussion. Ivan Head was Trudeau's adviser on foreign affairs. It's an interesting technique.
Normally, the person who writes a cabinet document has a 90 per cent edge over anyone else, and the way that they got around it on two or three occasions-and it was an entirely new technique of the Trudeau government- was just to have someone else write a paper; then they would switch gently from one paper to the other.
The one from the department was in effect rejected and the one written to be more coincident with the Prime Minister's views was the one that was ultimately incorporated into the policy decision.
Not only did the Prime Minister choose to attack Mr. Pearson's foreign and defence policy on the grounds that it was dominated by the military, but Mr. Stursberg shows that his real aim was not just to bring all Canadians forces back to Canada from Europe, but in effect to withdraw from the NATO alliance into a form of neutralism. That he did not succeed was largely due to the strong opposition of the Hon. Leo Cadieux, and no doubt to the many true Liberals, who like Lester Pearson himself, were outraged by this pseudo-NDP policy which took so little account of the real world in which Canada has to live.
If Canada reviews its policy for the 1980s, all members of this House should avail themselves of an opportunity to read some of Mr. Stursberg's work, taken from live tapes and
April 17, 1980

interviews, in order to remind themselves of the true feelings of this Prime Minister.
Since one of the main objectives of a foreign and defence policy review is to identify new factors which will influence, or are already influencing, the kind of world we live in, and then go on to indicate the broad policy directions we should follow, there would seem to be many changes needed in the eighties. However, for the purposes of this debate, and as defence critic of my party, I will turn to two areas in particular. They are the problems of international security and of oil. In some ways these two subjects are becoming closely linked, since the availability and security of oil supplies is by no means certain, and the future supply of oil has become in a strategic military sense both more significant and more precarious since 1970.
However, I do not mean to imply that the solution to the future security of oil supplies is, or should be, seen mainly in military terms. On the contrary, the best solution for the western world from Canada's point of view would surely be one in which the oil producing states were both strong and independent, but friendly towards the west. But political factors integral to both the nationalist feelings of the peoples of the Middle East, as well as the revolutionary currents sweeping through the Moslem world, have, as we all know, changed the situation dramatically in Iran. In the Iranian revolution, the confusion and violence led to, amongst other things, a cessation of oil supplies which not only increased oil prices but, if it had continued, would have threatened the basis of the economies of many western states.
To put it bluntly, if the internal Iranian situation were to get worse again, or if another Islamic state that was a major oil producer were to experience a similar revolutionary disturbance, many countries in the world, both industrialized and non-industrialized, would suffer serious consequences simply because of the cutoff, or cutback, in total supplies.
It is here that the indivisibility of political, economic and strategic factors in an alliance relationship becomes evident, and the need for a fundamental reassessment by both Canada and her allies is apparent. To put it bluntly, NATO is now, and will be for the forseeable future, dependent on oil supplies from the Middle East for a major part of its energy needs. If this is one of the major constraints on ourselves and our allies, then it should be addressed as a common problem, and whatever political, economic or other solutions we can agree on should be jointly arrived at and acted upon collectively.
There is the recent action of the Soviet Union in invading Afghanistan, which has confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt a major change in Russian policy, many signs of which have been visible for some time, and of which Afghanistan represents both the confirmation of a trend and the latest evidence that we must consider that the old relationship of detente is now dead.
The significance of this should not be underestimated. Most of the policy assumptions of Canada and our allies with regard to the Soviet bloc were based on the idea that, after the end of the cold war, we had developed a more constructive relationship which we learned to call "detente". Even though the two
The Address-Miss Begin
superpowers were adversaries, it was understood that not only should there be agreements to limit the increase in the numbers and types of strategic nuclear weapons, but there would also be no overt aggression; that is, no direct use of force to invade small and neutral neighbouring states like Afghanistan.
However, with the direct invasion of Afghanistan while offering only the flimsiest pretext, the Russians have gone one distinct step further. For the first time since 1945, the Red army has crossed an international frontier between a communist and a non-communist state. The difference here between their invasions and suppression of the revolutions in both Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 is an important one. In both the last two cases the Soviets could argue that they were acting under some type of real treaty obligation and also that they were acting to preserve the status quo.
Therefore, Afghanistan should lead us all, both in Canada and in the alliance, to reassess our policies for the future. Afghanistan should be assessed by the west, and NATO in particular, as an example of how their vital interests can be threatened indirectly without apparently any collective response being possible. That is because of the location of Afghanistan. I put heavy strees on the word "collective" because given that NATO is a defensive alliance made up of a large number of independent states, unless much thought and effort is devoted to arriving at a collective policy, nothing much can be done unless there is a precedent. The geographic zone which the NATO states have defined as the NATO area excludes a large part of the sea routes which bring oil from the Persian Gulf to Europe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, please allow me to first pay tribute and express my friendship and solidarity to the "Yvettes" of Canada. Since you are in the chair at the moment, I will ask you to transmit that to Madam Speaker, and, through the "Yvettes", wish her the best of luck in her new functions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word that may surprise you, being of the other sex. I want to say a word about the "Yvettes" in this chamber, and the two "Yvette" happenings. Because, whatever the analysis made now by the media and everyone, the plain truth about these two meetings is that ordinary women, people of every day, the so-called silent majority, got fed up with being humiliated and decided to speak up. It is to those ordinary people, the vast majority of Canadians, that I would like to speak today.
Their massive presence in favour of Quebec remaining in Canada has changed the rapport de forces in the province of Quebec. Women will have played a key role in the vote on the future of our country. In Quebec City, on March 30, there were 1,700 women from the area who shared a brunch to celebrate their No to separation. Sitting next to me was a woman baker in the family business in Lower Town, and next

April 17, 1980
108______________________________________
The Address-Miss Begin
to her was a young student in accounting at Laval University who had just won the Athlete of the Year medal.
At the Montreal Forum where 15,000 women met on April 7, I recognized a woman of 68 years of age who came with friends in a school bus from a community 55 miles from Montreal. 1 know of a woman doctor, a cafeteria employee and so-called housewives who were in the audience. None of these women belong to the Liberal party. 1 think it is important to say that they were ordinary Quebec people who knew what they wanted but do not necessarily work through a political party. They suddenly had a way to express their No to separation with pride and enthusiasm.
What they achieved is of great importance. For instance, they untangled a very dirty trick of the Pequiste government by breaking the isolation in which they had confined the ethnic votes and the votes of Anglo-Quebeckers.

In speaking out in favour of a No vote, without self-consciousness, without hesitation, the "Yvettes" have already played a significant role in the referendum debate. For instance, do they realize they have burst open the psychological ghetto in which our ethnic and Anglophone groups were trapped when the PQ government attempted to make them feel guilty about the future No to the referendum? Now, the Quebec-Italians, the Anglophones of Montreal, the Canadian-Haitians know that they do not have to say yes to prove their fellowship with French Canadians because thousands of women whose roots have long since been in Quebec have opposed separation; now, those groups know they do not stand alone, that they can vote No without being bad Quebeckers, false Quebeckers, bad pennies, and express their views about the future of our country. In other words, the "Yvettes" should know, must know, that what they gave back to thousands of ordinary people, of every day people, is their pride, and their loyalty, the right to be true to themselves. Today, on the occasion of the throne speech debate which follows the election of February 18 last, I should like to tell other ordinary Canadians that the government of this country has served them well and will continue to do so.
Today, I should like to find the word to convince those Quebeckers who hesitate, and are unsure about the answer to be given in the referendum, those who have been manipulated, who are sensitive to the PQ propaganda for separation that, overlooking the power struggle of their politicians, the truth, pure and simple, is that federalism has served them well. I would even go farther: nothing can better serve the interests of the humble people, the mass of ordinary Canadians, than Canadian federalism. I want to say this to Quebeckers: do not slip into facility by voting Yes to the question. Keeping federalism, renewing it, improving it, is far more difficult than separating, but it is far more advantageous, and well worth the trouble.
Why do I say that federalism is the best political system we can have, and that federalism has best served-and will continue to do so-the interest of average Canadians, especially those faced with sickness, unemployment or poverty? Flow can I say this when Canadians so often have difficulty finding their way through the different levels of government which they find, really, a puzzle?
A few years ago Gordon Fairweather, then one of our colleagues in the House and now chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, told the following story about the complexities of our work as federal politicians. One Friday evening when he arrived home in New Brunswick around 10 p.m. a constituent phoned to say: "There is a bear in our backyard. What can you do about it?" Telling this story, Mr. Fairweather turned to his audience and asked, facetiously: "Now, is a bear municipal, provincial or federal?" What does one do when there is a bear in a backyard, and in a city, on top of it all? 1 am sure Mr. Fairweather managed to find a solution which was good for the man and for the bear because he is aware of the complexities of different levels of government in a country like ours.
We are all at the service of the people and we must bridge these gaps and find our way through the puzzle. It is because our system is complex and power is shared between provincial, municipal and federal governments that we have the best in protection of freedoms and rights and the best in redistribution of income.

This is the subject I would like to speak on today, Mr. Speaker. Canadians have now been living under a federal system for 113 years. Historically, our federation is the third oldest in the world, coming after the American federation, established in 1787, and the Swiss federation established in 1848. Half of the global population now lives under a federal system. This proves that the viability of the system, its success as a type of political organization that allows for diversity and unity, that is unity in diversity, has long since been demonstrated.
After the United States, Switzerland, Canada and Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany more recently divided its powers between two levels of government. These federations met with such success that other nations chose to take on at least the appearances. Unfortunately, they have not always applied the major principle of federalism. And countries that may not necessarily appear to us to be worthy from the standpoint of human rights, welfare and freedom of the people happen to be federations and the party now in power in Quebec tell the people: Look at such and such a country, naming a few, we must always see whether such nations are truly applying federalism. Federalism means that there are at least two levels of government, each with specific and strong powers, that check each other, in order that neither can exert
April 17, 1980

expansionism at the expense of the other. That in a federation is the key to the equilibrium and the welfare of all its citizens. It is in the concept of a balanced division of powers between two levels of government that the strength of a federation lies. Nations where that principle has been applied are successes, and as 1 say countries such as the United States and Switzerland, Canada and Australia serve as models known to everybody.
However, Canadians over the years accumulated grievances against the government, the bureaucracy, the politicians and the system. 1 am sure that the large majority of Canadians who speak that way have constructive purposes. And of course this is part of the democratic process, because improving the system is an unending task.
But when each and every imperfection can be debated publicly, the pictures and words conveyed finally give people who are not very politicized the impression they live in an undescribable chaos while all the other countries of the world envy them their standard of living and their democratic rights. So I say to myself that we must help Canadians make over-all comparisons and not be blinded by the dramatization of some minor issues. True, there are and always will there be things to improve in our country, but I also know that we are much better off than others and that it is the extraordinary freedom we have that allows and furthers the work of reformists who want to change things for a better world.
So I feel like saying to all Canadians and to Quebeckers, of course, let us keep on enjoying the exceptional freedom we now have. Let us keep criticizing severely all our governments, but let us not be foolish enough to destroy the very system which enables us to be more critical, more demanding of our governments.
There are numerous benefits specifically related to federalism, to the fact that Canada is a federation. 1 could talk about them for hours. However, what I would like to do today, as it is of more particular concern to me as Minister of National Health and Welfare, is talk about social programs and explain to Quebeckers, as well as to Canadians in other provinces who might be tempted to forget it, just what redistribution of income is.
It is one o'clock. Therefore, I will continue this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.01 the House took recess.
[DOT] (MOO)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Address-Miss Begin
Monique Bégin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying this morning in the first part of my speech how Canadian federalism is precisely the form of political organization that allows the redistribution of wealth, which is what has served Quebeckers best and will continue to serve the ordinary Canadian, the everyday Canadian, best.
Of course, it is not my responsibility to decide what should come under federal or provincial jurisdiction in the area of health and welfare. For that matter, this is of little significance, because I want to deal with redistribution, and in any case, it is quite obvious that some services are better provided by the provinces which are on the spot and can take into account regional disparities and group particularities. On the other hand, it seems to me that we should not over-decentral-ize because beyond a certain point, decentralization becomes harmful to the very people it should be helping. So the federal system has served our people well not only because of the real savings it brings with it, but because of the significant distribution of wealth it allows.
Right now, in the province of Quebec, as my colleagues can verify, we are constantly being told by those who believe that the separation of Quebec is a good thing, "because we will no longer have to pay taxes to Ottawa and everything will go to Quebec, we will be able to do this or that and to have such and such a program." Having been Minister of National Revenue before becoming Minister of National Health and Welfare, 1 can tell you for a fact that the federal government taxes all Canadians evenly wherever they live in any one of the ten provinces, and I mean that all Canadians pay federal taxes and provincial taxes. The only difference is that the residents of the nine other provinces, except Quebec, pay their taxes by filing a single return which saves on administration costs, the federal government send back to each of the provinces its own share. Therefore, all Canadians are interdependent through the taxes they pay to the federal government according to their personal incomes.
If a province has fewer rich people, taxpayers with high incomes, it pays a little less than its share of federal taxes, which is in itself a form of help to the underprivileged. Now, for example, and 1 quote this figure because those given by the PQ government in Quebec are not realistic at all, Quebec pays at most 22 per cent of the federal taxes, even if its population represents 27 per cent of the population of Canada.
According to this reasoning, therefore, the situation is as follows: Quebeckers paid on the whole $13 billion in both federal and provincial taxes for 1978. Now the amount is shared between Quebec and Ottawa, but if all the taxes paid by Quebeckers go to Quebec, there will be at most $13 billion left, neither more nor less. Thus the question is whether existing programs can be maintained if Quebec separates. In fact the question is whether the people will still get the same old age security pension, the same supplement, the same family allowance, the same child tax credit? Will doctor

April 17, 1980
The Address-Miss Begin
appointments, operations, hospitalization, drugs, ambulance service for senior citizens still be free? These are the questions that people are asking about the referendum, and this is where I believe that the PQ government has made the most effort to buy the vote of the silent majority. Whoever tries to reply to these questions or even discuss them is accused of economic terrorism. However, we must not be afraid of facing economic realities. Then, Quebeckers will decide in full possession of the facts.
O)
The social programs offered to the population are so numerous that I shall attempt to explain the general rule applied before going on to particulars. Generally speaking, I believe it is fair to say that if the money paid to Ottawa by Quebeckers for universal programs were paid directly to Quebec, the people would probably go on benefiting from the same programs, for instance family allowances and old age security. However, the so-called selective programs, that is those aimed only at those groups who need them, such as the child tax credit, the pension supplement, certain health programs, medication, free ambulance services, and so on, could certainly not be paid in a separated Quebec without substantial tax increases or cutbacks in the programs of other departments. Why is this? Because these programs are aimed at redistribution and federal redistribution is not only from rich families to lower income families, but also from rich regions to underprivileged areas. This means that a Quebecker who receives a pension supplement or child tax credit cheque receives money from other areas in Canada and not money that he has paid in income tax.
Let us take the case of health care, to begin with. First of all, I hope that people are aware that when it comes to health expenditures, all fees paid to doctors and specialists in Quebec as well as the wages of nurses and health care workers are provided by the federal government. Unfortunately, the Canadian provinces-and it must be said that at the present time Quebec has a better record than the others in this regard-are now trying to save money at the expense of ordinary citizens by not allocating their share to health services. Indeed, we have been forced to set up an inquiry commission which is to report by June 30. But according to our analysis of public accounts, we pay 55 per cent of the Quebec health budget and the province pays 45 per cent. Ideally, it should be 50-50. It is a fact, and I challenge Mr. Lazure to deny it, that we paid $1.5 billion for health services in Quebec in 1978-79.
This represents 27.2 per cent of the total amount paid to the provinces for health services. It means that this is equal to the percentage of the Quebec population compared to the rest of Canada. Of course, Quebeckers have contributed part of that amount through taxes, but as they pay no more than 22 per cent of federal taxes, they get about $250 million more for health services than they pay in taxes to Ottawa. As concerns
the drug insurance about which Mr. Lazure pats himself on the back, I wish to remind him that two-thirds of the recipients already got it under the Bourassa government. In fact, he just increased the number of recipients by a third with federal money.
On the other hand, the free ambulance service is a completely different matter. It will be impossible to maintain that service if Quebec were to separate, for a very simple reason. The financing does not belong and never belonged to the Quebec government, and I want to tell this to the people who are listening to us. I want to say that this ambulance service set up about a year ago at a cost of $1.5 million is financed with the $2.7 million the PQ government took from institutionalized senior citizens. As you will remember, we raised the pension supplement by $20 a month for every single person or couple in January 1979. Mr. Lazure took $15 out of those $20, which belonged to the people and not to the Quebec government, and used that money to fund the ambulance service. I challenge him to tell the pensioners that he did not take 75 cent of our increase in the supplement. That is why I ask: where is the good government?
As far as social and welfare services are concerned, the situation is about the same as for medicare. The federal government reimburses the provinces 50 cents on each dollar they spend. That in effect means, and I do not think that people are aware of this, that each salary paid in the community health centres, each community project, the Drummond-ville Handicapped Bureau, the public day-care, the new home care service for the aged, and countless other services, are funded on a 50-50 basis by the federal government. The same is true where the 120,000 employees of the social affairs system are concerned.
Under that program, Quebec received 35 per cent of the funds allocated to public welfare schemes in Canada, that is $664 million for 1978-79. While receiving 35 per cent, as I mentioned earlier, Quebeckers making up 27 per cent of the population and paying only 22 per cent of federal taxes, earned a net amount of at least $220 million. Can the Pequiste minister, Mr. Lazure, deny that? This is a question that I am putting to the people.
Let us deal now with the cheques which are not given to the government but directly to people. And I quote an article by Claude V. Marsolais in the newspaper La Presse who stated on April 11 that Mr. Lazure will have to convince the pensioners to vote for sovereignty-association, that is for separation, and I will quote the text:
If he has been chosen to convince, it is apparently due partly to his personal popularity with senior citizens especially older women.
I would like to tell him: Be careful Dr. Lazure. There are many "Yvettes" among elderly women. You are not the first fine speaker that they have heard. They have seen many others. Do not forget Dr. Lazure, to tell those people-elderly women-and especially those who are alone, separated,
April 17, 1980

divorced, widowed, deserted or single that you are going to take away the full $35 increase in July, tell them. Tell them that you will do as you did the last time when you robbed them of $2.7 million. Tell them this time if you are going to take away from them $6 to $7 million. I would like him to say that. On Saturday, he will be addressing senior citizens in Verdun probably to convince them to vote for separation. The elderly should ask Mr. Lazure this question and obtain a reply, to find out where the PQ government stands on this issue.
Messrs. Levesque and Lazure, how dare you claim in your pensioner's booklet which you have published jointly with the Societe Saint-Jean Baptiste de Montreal that if the Yes team wins, nothing will change and the pension cheques will continue to arrive the following day. You know perfectly well that after you take action to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada, no matter how many months have passed after the referendum, you will have enough money to pay the pensions, but not enough to pay the supplements. You know that for the year 1978, before the $20 increase to the supplement, and before the new $35 increase granted in July, still based on my tax reckoning, Quebeckers received $120 million more in pensions than they paid out to the Canadian government. Would you dare deny that?
Another cheque which is sent directly by the federal government to the people is for family allowances and child tax credits. First of all, I want to make it clear that 75 per cent of the family allowance cheques to Quebec mothers come from the federal government, which means that the greater part comes from the federal and the smaller part comes from Quebec. Here again Quebec is the net winner in that it gets more family allowances and tax credits than it pays out in taxes, again because of the redistribution of income from the richer to the not so rich provinces.
So in that field we have an additional $80 million for family allowances, an additional $60 million more for the child tax credit scheme that people have received as benefits for children. On that subject, the program of the Parti Quebecois is quite clear, there is no mention of that at all and one can surmise that the vote of elderly people, because they have the right to vote, is perhaps more important in their eyes than the fate of children despite the state of poverty and the lack of opportunities prevailing among many families. Children cannot vote. I leave it at that. One thing for sure is that where poverty still exists and is unacceptable mothers will have to do without the child tax credit if the Yes vote wins. So I say: Where is the good government?
If you add up the social programs instituted by the Canadian government you will notice that Quebeckers collect cheques worth $680 million more than they pay in taxes to the Canadian government. That of course comes in addition to the famous equalization scheme which in itself is worth $1.27 billion a year. So I say that our social system is probably the most eloquent evidence of the value of federalism and of what
The Address-Miss Begin
federalism can give to ordinary citizens, because it is in the provinces' best interest to help the economically weaker ones to go through difficult periods. The system works both ways, by the way, since these provinces get stronger and there comes a time when they can pay their full tax share.
Were Quebec to become independent, then it could, of course, collect the taxes, the same amount it now pays to Ottawa. With this they could pay the pensions but not the supplement because they would not have enough money to pay this supplement to the 340,000 pensioners who receive this benefit in Quebec. So what would they do? They would have, beside the $500 million deficit in education, another deficit of $680 million for social programs alone. What are they going to do? Raise taxes? 1 for one say no because-and 1 see in front of me the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) who certainly agrees-Quebeckers already have the heaviest tax burden in Canada. Could they raise their budgetary deficit? I do not think so, given the present circumstances.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it was somehow repugnant to me to report on the social programs organized by the Canadian government in favour of Quebec simply because 1 feel that people are not for sale; pensions and social allowances are rights that people acquire by contributing to the building of our society. They are rights and not rewards that people will be granted according to their vote. I decided I had to find out what those figures were to show how Premier Levesque and the PQ government try to psychologically manipulate the elderly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to inform the minister that the time allotted to her has expired. Nevertheless she could carry on with unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Monique Bégin: I am very grateful to my colleagues for their good will, Mr. Speaker. All 1 want to say, and 1 shall try to be short, is that pensioners-and 1 take it everybody agrees on this-all need to be protected and reassured as to their economic security. It is crystal clear. But pensioners are tougher than that and fighting with figures on their back is to me the worst favour that the PQ could do them. That's what I think, and what I would like to say today is that people want to know the facts clearly and then be able to judge for themselves. The golden age clubs where 1 go regularly as the minister responsible for pensioners know very well that we have not dragged the pension question into the referendum debate. The PQ government decided to do so and with such insistence that 1 had no other choice as the minister responsible for all Canadian pensioners than to set the record right about the social programs offered to the population.
In closing, I wish to say that there are still so many urgent things that should be undertaken to continue to remedy the injustices and give everyone a fair chance. In the next few

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Althouse
months we intend to undertake the reform of private pension plans so that every Canadian can enjoy an adequate retirement income. The Canada Pension Plan has to be updated as well to protect the housewife who has no income from private pension plans. The Quebec Pension Plan needs the very same reforms. We have to examine whether the annual guaranteed income is feasible, when and how. So I ask: Whom could we work with in Quebec? We do not believe in a country only for what it can give us, a country means a lot more than that.
Today, I tried to explain that it is not by accident that Canada is a success. It is so because of federalism. It is not by accident that it has so well served the poor and the ordinary people, wherever they live. It is thanks to federalism which allows a fair distribution of riches. It is not by accident. There are many new and relatively young members in the House of Commons who have little experience in public life. But let us just recall a few dates: it was not by accident that the federal government rather than the provincial governments established unemployment insurance back in 1935, family allowances in 1945, universal old age pensions in 1951, the pension supplement in 1967, cost-shared social services and hospital insurance in 1957 and medicare in 1967. It was thanks to federalism.
For those who suffer hardships at some time in their lives, Canadian federalism is a friend, a much needed brother that has a face; it is an Albertan, an Ontarian, a woman in British Columbia. In a word, it is another Canadian.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating our new Speaker on her appointment to that important office in this new Parliament. 1 wish her well. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for their speeches as the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
As this is my first speech in this House I would like to take a moment to thank the voters of my constituency for their confidence in electing me to this Parliament.
My riding is an agricultural riding with farmers producing most products that are produced in Canada. It is a particular honour, as a farmer myself representing such a riding, to have been named the agricultural critic for my party.
In this vein I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) on his reappointment as Minister of Agriculture. I wish him well in his position. I also want to convey this sentiment to the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), a member of the Conservative party, in his position as chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am looking forward to working with both of those gentlemen on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and in the House.
My riding, Humboldt-Lake Centre, is located in the centre of rural Saskatchewan, east of Saskatoon and north of Regina, comprising about 150 or 160 miles of territory in each direction from those cities. The town of Humboldt is the largest centre in the riding with a population of about 4,500 people. Our industries are agriculture, potash mining and farm equipment manufacturing. We have about 12 farm equipment manufacturers manufacturing large cultivators, rod weeders, stone picking equipment and various kinds of grain hauling equipment. We have four potash mines in Guernsey, Colonsay, Allan and Patience Lake. Our production is diversified and efficient to the point of being world competitive by force of our small local domestic market for our goods, and because we have developed a world class technology to compete on a worldwide basis, both with the production of potash and our agriculture products and, I might add, our farm machinery production.
In the farm machinery field I should also point out that the Prairie Agriculture Machinery Institute is located in Humboldt. It is supported by the three Prairie governments, and it is recognized across North America and, indeed, around the world, as a leader in the testing of farm equipment.
As is always the case, the people of our constituency are shaped by our history and our environment. Though our province of Saskatchewan will be 75 years old this year, there have been people there much longer than that, and all of those people have been immigrants. Immigrant peoples who have been there the longest are the Cree, followed by the Saulteaux who moved in from the northeast a few hundred years ago. From the south we have the Sioux who moved in after the days of white man's recorded history. Others who followed were Europeans, Americans and some Asians. They arrived mostly in the last 100 years. They founded a part of Canada that is vast and lonely but with plenty of room for growth, not only economically but for future generations as well.
To many of these newcomers, that vastness meant security. Our climate and geography can be harsh, and the immigrants who pioneered that region quickly found that life was easier for individuals if they combined forces against the elements. The Indians worked and lived in groups to combat those elements. When the white man came he followed a similar pattern. The white man used building bees so that shelters could be constructed quickly. Both groups co-operated in managing food supplies, the Indians by working together on buffalo hunts and the white man by setting up beef rings so that when an animal was killed the meat could be distributed around the community to avoid its spoiling.
As well, the people there worked together to provide necessary community services, roads and trails, schools, and hospitals. Having established a system and tradition of co-operation and working together to survive the natural elements and to develop some semblance of social service, the early settlers of our region very quickly turned their attention to trying to tame the economic system that they lived within. They reasoned
April 17, 1980

that if man can use his skills and talents to survive the natural elements that give us prairie winters and drought, then surely man can use that same intelligence to ameliorate the violence of the market economy.
Whether one views the market as a natural or a man-made phenomenon, one cannot dispute the logic of their approach. Perhaps that explains the history of political and economic activism that generated from our region and why I am honoured to have been chosen by my constituents to carry on this long, honourable and necessary tradition. I hope to be equal to the task.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: As we begin this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important to spend a moment considering some of the leftovers from previous governments which affect the agricultural industry. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), in his role as agriculture critic in previous parliaments, has raised a number of matters which have yet to be addressed. The Minister of Agriculture recently tabled the report prepared by the National Farm Products Marketing Council concerning the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. Our party will be asking for an opportunity to examine this report along with the annual report of CEMA in the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Elgin, established an interdepartmental committee to examine the effect of hydrogenated trans-fatty acids in margarine upon the health of Canadians. We will be expecting a report from this group to the appropriate committee of this House at the appropriate time in the upcoming session of Parliament.
In 1978 the current and then Minister of Agriculture established an interdepartmental committee to examine allegations concerning the toxicity testing by Industrial Biotest Laboratory of many of the major farm chemicals used in Canada. It is our understanding that an interim report of this committee has been completed, and we will be asking that it be tabled by the minister in the House at the earliest possible opportunity. We continue to view this situation as being of serious importance indeed.
Finally, we have been promised by successive ministers of the environment that a national land use policy will be established across our country. It should set out at the very least a policy for the use, purchase and sale of federal lands. This affects our Indian people, ranchers, farmers, and users of recreational land and it should therefore be dealt with quickly. We will continue to pursue this issue in the House and in the appropriate committee. Our party cannot understand the delays and stalling in producing any sort of document outlining a national land use policy.
After that brief outlining of some leftover issues which remain with us, Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at some of the issues that are of prime importance to agriculture today. The biggest of these concerns is the crisis of high interest rates. High interest rates are sapping the strength of every sector of
The Address-Mr. Althouse
our economy, but nowhere are they more strongly felt than in the agricultural community.
Next week we will see two mass rallies and demonstrations held in Ottawa demanding emergency action on interest rates for farmers. The National Farmers Union will be on the Hill on Tuesday, and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture will be in the Chateau Laurier on Thursday to show their concerns over this crisis. Why are these farmers coming to Ottawa? They are coming because of the combination of chronically low prices for many commodities, the rising prices for fuel, chemicals, and fertilizers-all of which are oil or natural gas based-machinery and high land costs make the additional burden of increased interest costs intolerable.
The president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture points out in a recent issue of Farm and Country that interest rates have almost doubled since 1978. Many farmers are paying 19 per cent on their floating loans for operating capital. And what about the federal Farm Credit Corporation, the agency set up to provide long-term debt financing? Interest rates there have gone from 10 per cent in March, 1979, under a Liberal administration to 12 per cent under the Conservative administration, and now it is 13 per cent under the Liberal administration again. The number of loans in 1978-79 actually declined, in over-all amount and in number of loans, over 1977-78.
The Liberal government had been starving the FCC of funds, and while the hon. member for Elgin increased the capital to the FCC by $50 million during his term in office, this still amounts to a drop in the basket. Farm debt is increasing at a rate of about $1.5 billion per year. The amount of farm debt has tripled from 1968 to 1978, going from $4.1 billion to $12.3 billion in those years. Certainly a massive injection of capital is needed to rejuvenate the Farm Credit Corporation.
As a concrete step to allow young farmers to continue to get into farming and to allow other farmers to make major investments, this government should have frozen the interest rate at 12 per cent. Instead, we see in the Speech from the Throne increases in the farm improvement loans ceiling to $100,000 which prompted the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to say, "more rope to hang yourself'.
The current interest rate for farm improvement loans is 18.5 per cent. In 1978, first estimates indicated that $212 million was loaned under this act. That amounted to only 2.7 per cent of the total credit extended to farmers in that year. Some banks provide almost no funding under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Most farmers will tell you that no matter what bank you go to these loans are hard or nearly impossible to get, even at the rate of 18.5 per cent, which is still no favour to the farmers.
It is obvious that this government will have to do much more if they hope effectively to assist farmers with the current problem of high interest rates. Farmers need help this spring to put their crops in, and we must develop programs rapidly if we are to provide the assistance they need. Accordingly, I would

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Althouse
offer the full support of our party for rapid passage of any reasonable legislation to put this assistance into force.
I would like to spend a moment discussing the reasons for this ever-increasing debt. It seems to me that we have an industry which is in very serious trouble, and that we should be looking at the reasons for the serious situation which was developed. You do not have a viable industry if you see the debt load of that industry tripled in ten years. Why is the industry not developing enough capital to refinance itself? Why are farmers continually having to borrow ever-increasing amounts of money in order to stay in business? I think we have to look at the kind of prices farmers have been getting.
This spring we find that potato prices are disastrously low, for the third year in a row. They are well below half the cost of production. Hog prices are about one third below the cost of production. Prices for finished cattle have slipped badly. Calf and feeder markets have followed. The Carter grain embargo is affecting grain prices and in particular is affecting feed grain. That embargo trapped a great deal of feed grain that previously had markets in the United States, where farmers are trying to get around the problem by feeding more to hogs and chickens. As the price of grain has fallen, so has the price of beef, hogs and chickens. Indeed, many analysts were predicting increases in grain prices prior to the implementation of the Carter boycott and this trapped unexpected supplies of grains in the United States.
We can contrast the problems in the hog, beef and potato markets with the egg, turkey and chicken industry in this country today. In these commodities, where national orderly marketing agencies help to stabilize price and supply and provide some security to both the farmer and to the consumer, things are not quite so bad. These agencies organize producers, give them some control over imports being dumped into our markets and provide consumers with a lower price for the product when international supply and demand swings the other way-to high prices on the world market.
Certainly there are problems from time to time with these agencies, but they are open to public scrutiny and are responsible to Canadians through Parliament in a way that no private corporation is ever expected to be.
In this context I want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, in support of a Canadian potato marketing commission. How long must we watch the bickering amongst provincial marketing boards? Shortsighted and corporate dominated provincial governments and this federal government conspire to keep potato producers in a quagmire of debt, uncertainty and potential bankruptcy. I notice that another marketing agency has been established in the province of New Brunswick. It seems to me, having worked with a provincial board in Saskatchewan dealing with hogs, that it brings about only a minor improvement to the market situation. Until those marketing boards can work together in a national scheme, or at least a regional scheme, no real solution to the problem begins to emerge. I propose that we move as quickly as possible to the
establishment of a potato marketing commission with the provinces transferring some of their powers to the federal jurisdiction.
The potato industry in Canada is in very serious trouble. Prices this year are 1.75 cents per pound while the cost of production is 4.5 cents. This is the third bad year in a row. Parts of New Brunswick had massive crop spoilage problems and as many as 20 per cent of the farmers will not be able to put a crop in without considerable financial assistance.
If we were to set up an agency similar to the Canadian Wheat Board to provide standardized grading and inspection systems for all potatoes and hire top flight marketers like those in the Wheat Board, we would begin to realize the tremendous potential for expansion in the potato industry.
Let us consider now the benefits of this on the farm. Firm prices would attract and hold new farmers, would stabilize the farm supply and processing industry, and would allow farmers to move to a proper rotation of crops with better soil management, instead of the current continuous cropping and exploitation of the soil that some farmers are forced to adopt just to stay in business and beat the cost-price squeeze.
I would further argue that the hog industry is ripe for a similar orderly marketing system. The instability of the last decade has been very wasteful of resources. We have allowed the industry in Quebec to become heavily vertically integrated, with farmers at the mercy of the corporations and their "here today, gone tomorrow" contracts. We now see that Cargill, for instance, is moving to vertically integrate the hog industry in Manitoba as well.
Is Canadian production to be replaced by U.S. imports in the long run? Are we going to allow the same situation to occur with hogs as occurred in the past with chickens? Are we going to try to pick up the pieces in five years' time, when we negotiate with the United States on import levels, because we do not have a national marketing agency today? We should be moving on this now. Hog supplies are not far from being in balance with demand in this country at the present time. We have the potential to maintain and expand exports to the United States and other selected markets. Now is the time to set up a national agency, not five years from now.
I am pleased to see mention of a meat import law in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, not because I believe it represents any long-term solution, but rather because it is a step in the right direction. I hope that it includes all meat and that we will also have effective controls on the movement of live animals for slaughter.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a couple of other issues that are likely to come before us in this Parliament or that are recurring issues in this country. I hope to see, as does my colleague the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), a full commitment to proceeding with the development of the port of Prince Rupert by this government.
I hope that feed grains will be restored to the Canadian Wheat Board and that the board will be given jurisdiction over oil seeds. I would recommend the adoption as soon as possible
April 17, 1980

of the Hall commission report and its solutions regarding the Crow rate and I would ask this government to maintain all branch lines where elevator companies are committed to retaining service.
1 should also like to place on record the continuing opposition of this party to plant breeders' rights legislation. This would result in higher costs of seed to farmers, would result in the takeover of many of our breeding programs and our seed companies by foreign companies, and would also bring about a decline in those breeding programs by our public research institutions. It would contribute to fewer varieties of seeds being available and could present many problems to seed growers across Canada as they face imported seed or the contracting out of new seed varieties by the companies that would own the rights to these seeds. I would urge the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to set aside plans to introduce such legislation.
1 hope that we will have an opportunity to debate the setting up of new marketing agencies, expanding and improving the Farm Credit Corporation, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and measures such as these which would boost Canadian self-sufficiency in the production of fruits, vegetables and other commodities. I also hope that we will have legislation providing for the labelling of food by country of origin and that we will have the means to provide for energy conservation and improved storage and handling techniques. Changes are needed as well to the Agricultural Stabilization Act to make it responsive to the needs of individual producers and to improve its ability to stabilize net farm incomes.
We face many challenges and many opportunities, Mr. Speaker, as we begin this new Parliament and this new decade. I look forward to working with all members so that we can make these opportunities a reality. It has been an honour to be able to participate in this throne speech debate by making my maiden speech in Parliament, Mr. Speaker.


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


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying I am very happy to take part in the throne speech debate. I had first intended to deal mainly with my responsibilities as Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. I decided against this because I think that we in this country are currently living critical times and that we have to tackle problems which somehow transcend our own interests, whether they be regional, provincial or other, and focus on interests and matters which have more bearing on the Canadian nation as a whole. [English]
I feel most strongly, Mr. Speaker, with the referendum staring us in the face, that my first speech in this Parliament should address itself primarily to an issue of vital interest to the nation, because notwithstanding arguments to the con-
The Address-Mr. Fox
trary, the referendum is not only a French question, not only a Quebec question, but a question affecting the future of Canada, with Quebec being an important part of that future. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the ultra-nationalists, and particularly the separatists, indicate that they interpret the history of Quebec and that of Quebec within Canada in a way which, according to them, shows that the French language and culture have constantly been imperiled and kept from developing in our country. The conclusion drawn is that the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada is necessary to ensure not only the respect but also the survival of French culture.
This separatist rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, is clearly fallacious. It is a fabric of lies feeding the political ambition of a group of people who merely seek total power over their fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, the French language is alive and well as it never was before. French culture is alive and well as it never was before. To maintain that Canadian federalism has not allowed the French language and the French culture to develop and flourish within our boundaries is unfounded. It is also unfounded to maintain that Canada's central government has jeopardized the stability and the flourishing of our French fact in our Canada. In fact, the facts are quite the opposite. The facts are quite different from the separatist fiction.
Mr. Speaker, I have found in recent years, especially when meeting groups of young people in our CEGEPs, that it is always hard to explain that there is a difference between reality and fiction and to make them understand that Canada through its central government and its federal system has in fact enabled the French language to be used and to be improved in Quebec and throughout the country.
I know that some realities are hard to swallow in some separatist circles, but the fact is that they are realities. First, through its Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada acknowledged not only the historical contribution of Francophones, but also the basic role Francophones will play in the future of our country. And this has happened, Mr. Speaker, without any need to think about separation, about a break. That act had recognized, long before the Parti Quebe-cois started to move, that Canada must be bilingual and must remain so in order to be truly its own self. Progress made since the inception of that act is encouraging. That is a reality much more important than the separatist fiction.
Contrary to separatists' claim, who by the way are making entirely false statements and even distort historical facts to their advantage, Canadians know that they can communicate with the central government in the language of their choice wherever they are in Canada. They know that the Government of Canada is increasingly promoting access by all Canadians to the learning and use of the other official language and is sparing no effort to allow them to live and develop in the official language of their choice. The provincial governments

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Fox
also have the responsibility to ensure the development of the French-speaking community living within their territory. After many historical difficulties, some of which continue to exist, that responsibility is being increasingly recognized.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, in that respect to quote just one figure. For instance, who knows in Quebec that today in the far away province of Alberta there are as many as 75 Francophone schools? Who among the big names in the separatist movement in Quebec would tell the people of that province that today in Canada more than 203,000 children of Englishspeaking families outside Quebec are attending French immersion classes in school? This is an example of the kind of change that has occurred through the years in English Canada, in the other provinces of this great country, mention of which is very seldom made in the province of Quebec.
The members of this House know that quite well. The government of Canada encourages the teaching of the minority language in each province all across Canada. A total of $160 million has been paid by my department to the provinces for that purpose during the fiscal year 1979-80. This is a fact. To the province of Quebec alone, some $733 million, that is $300 million in direct transfers and $400 million in tax transfers, were contributed to education in 1979-80.
Who, among the staunch supporters of separatism, Mr. Speaker, has had the courage to recognize those efforts made by the central government in the field of education in the province of Quebec during the debate at the National Assembly? No one of course. But this is a fact. The young people in Quebec have more than ever before the opportunity to take advantage of new working tools, to take part in meaningful exchanges with other young Canadians, to benefit from teaching materials which help them to acquire a better command of their French and to learn English if they wish. For that purpose, an amount of $10 million, including $6 million for linguistic exchanges alone, has been paid under the Open House Canada program. That is a reality, Mr. Speaker, a verifiable fact.
The Government of Canada also helps newcomers to Quebec. It helps them to get their education in French. That is a program about which Quebec separatists keep quiet. They do not talk about the amounts spent to enable new citizens to better integrate in the Francophone life of Quebec and Canada, nor about the $11 million spent by the Department of Manpower for that purpose. Let us also mention the amounts put at the disposal of young Francophones through employment, animation and training programs such as the armed forces programs which enable young Quebeckers to get a better education in French. Quebec separatists do not talk about that either.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention translation programs which promote communications in both our official languages. We invest each year huge amounts in that field. Last year, for instance, the translation bureau in my department spent $50
million on its translation programs in the official languages. This amount includes $6 million for research to ensure the quality, updating and universality of the French language within our society, to set up a modern terminology bank, and link French-speaking Canada to the international data banks. Therefore, it would not be true to assert that the central government did nothing to promote the French language. Reality is quite different.
So I call upon all Quebeckers to make an honest and thorough examination because indeed, Mr. Speaker, this matter has never been examined with the intellectual honesty and earnestness it calls for. What are those realities involved? Let us take, for example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board, Canada Council and all the other cultural agencies of the Government of Canada; those agencies, Mr. Speaker, did not need the outbursts of the separatist government in Quebec to contribute substantially to the survival and use of the French language, and to bring about a great improvement in the quality of the French language and culture in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada.
What would the French fact be in Canada today? Would it have the same quality, the same status, the same significance if it were not for the CBC, the National Film Board, Canada Council, the National Museums, Public Archives and all the other agencies of the central government? Again, those are realities, not illusions, not talk, but facts, real facts, true facts. No honest citizen, can pretend that Radio-Canada has not been in the past and does not continue to be a major catalyser of the most dynamic elements in the Francophone information, and artistic communities, which enabled them to achieve success and growth. It would now be opportune to make a few comments about the quality of the French language, which Radio-Canada announcers have been displaying for many years. From Henri Bergeron to Rene Lecavalier, all announcers have always promoted high standards for the French, not the English language, not the promotion of "joual", but the promotion of good French. That is a fact.
I could also quote figures in this connection. Let us take for example the year 1977-78. Radio-Canada spent over $200 million in the province of Quebec, that is 36 per cent of its over-all expenditures in that same year. That is much more than the strict mathematical percentage that is so dear to the Pequistes, a strict mathematical percentage based on population. That year the corporation employed 4,300 persons in Quebec. Is that really a federal government that tries to hinder French culture? The salaries of those employees and related expenses total more than $100 million. The total value of Radio-Canada's capital investments in the province of Quebec as of March 31, 1978, amounted to $151 million. That also is a fact.
April 17, 1980

How many of our artists have benefited some time or other from Radio-Canada? How many of our cultural or even social and political groups have come to be known through Radio-Canada? And that situation prevails since the very beginning of TV in Canada. It did not wait for separatist agitation.
I could also speak of the National Film Board, Mr. Speaker. Let us ask our Quebec separatists where our Quebec filmmakers, our Francophone filmmakers, would stand without the National Film Board. We could point out that the Government of Canada, and the National Film Board, have within a federal Canada given an opportunity for all our talents to come of age; for Claude Jutras to create Mon oncle Antoine, for Gilles Carle, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, Pierre Perrault and so many others to express their creativity.
And what about the new tax measures giving a new boost to the Francophone film industry in Canada? That is also a fact. The Government of Canada does not lay any conditions for its support of Francophone creative talents and cultural instruments. It does not impose any political censorship. It does not urge artists to become members of a particular committee rather than another. To my knowledge, Radio-Canada has never been known to be teeming with federalists.


An hon. Member:: That is another fact.


Francis Fox: This real freedom is also a fact. Do we really find the same freedom in all the interventions of the Parti Quebe-cois government on linguistic and cultural matters? Is there really the same quality of freedom and the same opportunities to express different views within some agencies of the Parti Quebecois government? Have we heard many federalists over Radio-Quebec? We must think about that too, Mr. Speaker.
I could also say much more about Canada Council. Once again, reality is far from separatist fiction. It is the opposite of the false statements that are rammed down the people's throats under the guise of nice songs and high-falutin elucidations. Where would all our creative talents, all our artists, all our craftsmen, all our drama groups, all our musical and dance organizations be without the support of Canada Council and Radio-Canada? The Government of Canada has for several decades been the mainstay of artistic creation and the major prop of Francophone artistic development. Once again, this is a fact. This is a fact that hurts in some circles, but that is one we must not overlook.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to address for a few moments the most creative minds of our society. Where would we be today if, at a time when the government of Quebec was not much concerned with culture, information or university education, when some public figures derided what they termed "artistic art", the Government of Canada had not been there and if a federal system of government had not been able to compensate-and I emphasize compensate-for a lack of understanding in some responsible quarters. Those things did happen in the past and they are true. Those are facts. How could anyone now argue that the Government of Canada has tried to overshadow the French fact, to make French-speaking artists
The Address-Mr. Fox
subservient to the English-speaking majority whereas what really happened is exactly the opposite? How could we reasonably claim that artistic creation would be stimulated if Quebec were to secede? Those issues require more pondering over.
Furthermore, in a sovereign Quebec in which the Parti Quebecois is committed to maintain all social transfer payments, pay the salaries of former federal employees and many other expenditures, what would be the working margin, what resources would be left for the government to support artistic and cultural activities? This is a question we must now ask ourselves and answer without delay.
Those are the facts we must face now. Under the guise of lovely songs which are sometimes I quite agree very beautiful and displays of passion probably, the big guns of the Parti Quebecois go around distorting reality, disguising facts, spreading lies which if repeated often enough will finally be accepted as truths. They ask the people to trade their birthright for a mess of pottage, to trade the positive support of the Government of Canada which is a concrete reality for a would-be society of which the only indisputable feature is the fact that a small elitist group would gain absolute power over the people of Quebec.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, at this political turning point in our history, on the eve of the Quebec referendum, 1 would like to deal with two other matters which are of particular interest to me.
Personally, I have always been irritated by the way the separatist speakers seem to enjoy confusing the issues. And such confusion which has been deliberately spread around for a number of years must be dispelled. I am referring to the fact that they confuse the problems that may confront the Frenchspeaking community with the problems that may confront Quebeckers as citizens of a particular region. How can anyone go on suggesting that all of Quebec's problems are due to the fact that there is in our country an English-speaking majority and a French-speaking minority?
A very large number of the existing problems are regional, social and economic problems that have nothing to do with the French nature of Quebec. A very large part of Quebec's problems are caused by social, geographic or economic conditions that have nothing to do with le fait fran^ais as such. It is dishonest to have people believe that all the existing problems in Quebec have as their one and only cause the strained relationship between the two linguistic communities.
Unemployment problems in some areas, the problem of industrial development in Quebec for example, are based on geographic and economic data and having nothing to do with the French fact. It seems to me that it should no longer be possible to make the people believe that all those problems would disappear immediately after Quebec achieved sovereignty-

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Fox
However, we all know very well that the separatist star performers are spreading all those dreams. The liberation of everyone is now connected to a so-called liberation of Quebec. There is some confusion there between a certain type of problem related to the linguistic make-up of our country and another type of problem related to geographic and economic data, and this confusion should not be ignored any longer.
This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to another aspect of the debate which deserves close attention. Preserving the French language and culture, setting up the framework and the tools to guarantee their dynamic development are not the game preserves of the separatists. They are dear to the hearts of all Quebeckers, whether they toil in the private or public sectors, whether they toil in Ottawa or in Quebec. The will to remain French is every bit as strong among federalists who work with the central government as among the separatists who work in the National Assembly. To claim the contrary is dishonest.
There certainly have been moments of tension in our Canadian history. Those moments must neither be downplayed nor exaggerated. But they cannot be expected to disappear some day. Tensions are part of life itself. They would even exist in a system born of a type of sovereignty-association. But just as it has been done in the course of the last decades and as it will always be necessary to continue doing so, every means must be taken to make both linguistic groups in our country understand the positive contribution of the other, the need to fully respect it and appreciate its differences.
Those past incidents which often go far back in our history have been such, and I readily agree, that no Francophone wants to leave his linguistic fate entirely in the hands of the other linguistic group of the country. This political will is a basic political fact in our country. But this political will, Mr. Speaker, does not necessarily require going from a federal to a unitary system, from a Canada with two co-existing linguistic communities to a separate Quebec state.
We find, Mr. Speaker, that in Mr. Camille Laurin's white paper, an anthropological method is used to interpret society. In that white paper, the linguistic phenomenon is referred to as a basic feature of daily life in Quebec around which are centred all other aspects of life and which serves to interpret the remainder of the community. All the vital manifestations of a community are subjected to the language criterion alone.
The anthropological method is an interesting interpretation tool. But it is far from being as relevant as some would suggest or as effective in the daily life of every citizen of our province. Every Quebecker understands that there are other factors in his life besides the linguistic one, that there are, among others, political, social, economic, ethnic, religous factors. It is true that there are English-speaking Canadians on the one hand and French-speaking Canadians on the other, but it is equally true that there are a great many other factors which differentiate amongst our fellow-citizens and which, in fact, unite Canadians much more than they divide them. There are many more elements which unite the citizens of our country than
elements which divide them. What unites us is much stronger than what makes us different. What we have in common is more important than what sets us apart.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go over this same argument differently. For me, in my political philosophy, in my view of the political organization of the country and society, in my conception of the instruments needed by a society to ensure its development, I am completely opposed to any kind of exclusive jurisdiction and control. I am all the more opposed to such control as this type of society which some are trying to sell us would destroy one of the best means we have had throughout our history to develop and to ensure as much as possible that individual rights are respected. I cannot accept that a single government could have complete control over my life, over the legislation which affects me, over my taxes. On the contrary, I believe that it is healthy, especially in the areas which affect our everyday life, which affect the fabric of our society, which affect culture, for no government to have complete control over what concerns us. I believe it is healthy that there should be some competition between two levels of government to better protect the rights of citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on Quebec separation has been going on for several years. A majority of citizens are still dead set against the projects of the separatists, that of sovereignty. In fact, this relentless opposition has been understood even by the Parti Quebecois. At the present time, the referendum debate does not deal with the separation project because it would be categorically rejected by the population. But they are still trying to bring Quebeckers gradually to take one more step in a direction they reject. There is dishonesty in the gradual approach being proposed by the Parti Quebecois. There seems to me to be a basic lack of respect for the people of Quebec. They seem to me to be trying to do indirectly and gradually what the people do not want to do directly and clearly.
The present referendum debate still remains a historical debate that will be an essential element in the evolution of all citizens of Quebec as well as that of all other citizens of Canada. That historical debate has led the separatists of the Parti Quebecois to make totally false assertions. It is false to pretend that Quebec needs a Yes to secure a mandate to get things moving when, quite to the contrary, the reality is that the mandate to get things moving is on the No side. It is false that Quebec must separate to ensure the maintenance and the development of the French language and culture in Quebec itself. Contrary to what they say in separatist circles, the Government of Canada, both in the past and in the present-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 17, 1980


Francis Fox: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I must say that contrary to what separatists have been saying for a long time, the Government of Canada, both in the past and in the present, and it will be the same in the future, has been an all essential and privileged instrument to promote the development of the quality of the French language and culture. That French fact which is recognized today not only at home but all over the world would not be as vigorous, as rich, as promising had it not been for the whole positive contribution of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the federal system of our Canada is a much better instrument to ensure the progress of French and the promotion of Francophones than a Unitarian system would be, a political system that would isolate Quebeckers from the real challenges, the challenges of a universe in which people who are different will have to have learned to live together to ensure peace, freedom, security and prosperity for all.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituency of Bruce-Grey I welcome the opportunity to join in the response to the Speech from the Throne which has opened this Thirty-second Parliament.
First, may I congratulate Madam Speaker on her appointment as Speaker and wish her a successful term. Second, I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues on their successful campaign. I wish them well in their deliberations on behalf of this country.
In my initial speech in this House I would like to exercise the privilege of referring to my constituency of Bruce-Grey. One of the most unique aspects of this constituency is treasures which are hidden within its boundaries: from the caves of the islands off Tobermory, down the beautiful Niagara escarpment and Georgian Bay and along the shoreline of unspoiled Lake Huron, from the awesome Bruce nuclear power development and its surrounding Scottish communities to the industrious Hanover which forms the heartland of a thriving furniture industry, and from the German community of Neustadt to the resilient Durham, and beyond this to the security and stability of Walter's Falls; they are treasures in themselves and all enclosing a productive rural community.
This riding should be identified as a breeding ground for some great politicians, at least until now. The Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker was born in Neustadt, and the great-grandfather of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) homesteaded in Kincardine township. Its basic resource in people, however, is in those who have remained in the farming communities, which continue to thrive. This human resource has recently been augmented by people who have come in numbers to the area to build and operate what is to be the largest nuclear complex in the world.
The Address-Mr. Gurbin
The natural attributes have allowed many of our citizens to work in the tourist trade, while others find employment in a variety of manufacturing industries but particularly in furniture and wood products.
The main issues which are important to the people I am here to represent are really not much different from the basic concerns which exist across my province of Ontario and throughout our whole country.
Beef and other farming activities in Bruce-Grey are among the most productive in Canada. Farming through our independent farming operations is to our future what oil and energy resources are to today. Unfortunately, in the throne speech we have failed to take any meaningful initiatives to allow farming operations to continue their economic survival.
Worst of all, because of debt and costs, this year some cannot afford to sow their crops unless they sell capital investments. Some will not plant. The individual economic hardships farmers face are serious enough; the loss of productive farm capacity in a world of hunger is tragic. This problem has a good deal to do with the prices farmers are able to get for their products. I applaud the proposed expansion of export markets through a Canadian agricultural export corporation. I am encouraged by the indication of meat import legislation and hope that it will be an effective instrument for beef producers. I hope that the election promise of a farm price review will in fact happen. I sincerely hope that this government will provide some short-term relief for the survival of our farmers until economic conditions improve.
Nuclear energy has had a very emotional and uneven history. It has developed in the shadow of the most destructive force yet devised by man, and in the wake of Three Mile Island this shadow has almost eclipsed the entire American nuclear program. Our nuclear resources in Canada have developed on the basis of need, particularly in the industrial heartland of Canada, in Ontario.
Bruce-Grey has in progress the second major phase of a construction program which will provide approximately one quarter of all the electrical energy in Ontario. This complex, based on the prize of Canadian technology, the Candu system, will also provide the largest steam plant in the world and enough steam to run four of Alberta's syncrude plants.
This complex also gives the largest North American example of the combined use of an energy source to produce both electricity and steam energy for industrial activity. The heavy water plants use massive amounts of steam to produce heavy water for our Candu system.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the digression, but the explanation was important both in terms of the indication in the throne speech to create an alternative energy corporation and also in the critical energy future of Ontario.

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Gurbin
Amazing economic opportunities could result from the full utilization of the energy facilities now in place. Improvement of fuel efficiency from less than one third to more than two thirds is an exciting potential. The combination of this efficiency improvement with the existing technologies of portable fuels, including methanol, ethanol and hydrogen, give Ontario an energy future which can be capable of significant independence. I believe we could have energy self-reliance for Ontario by the year 2000.
An additional comment is appropriate in discussing this energy future. The integration of the conservation of cogenerated heat units combined with biomass from trees or other cellulose sources, cash crops starch sources, sugar sources or from waste products, forms a cycle to produce a hydrocarbon from a renewable source.
The nuclear component of this combination presents to Ontario an opportunity to achieve a degree of independence and remain competitive with those provinces which are endowed with fossil fuel deposits or massive hydroelectric opportunities. In addition, significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions can occur. This can help avoid the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect.
An important element in the ongoing Canadian energy discussion is the provincial constitutional control of energy resources. This dialogue can be assisted by the understanding in Ontario of the potential we have.
In our own area we have in process now the development of a particular expression of cogeneration. This expression is in the form of a small greenhouse prototype which is one acre in size. This prototype in fact is developed using three different types of greenhouse structure, and at the present time it is in the middle of its second crop of producing cucumbers and tomatoes for the markets of Ontario and Canada.
In developing this technique and producing this variety of greenhouse produce we expose to Canada a technology that can be used to develop a marketable produce from our own energy resource. We can in fact replace imports which are coming in at the rate of approximately $200 million a year, and we can do this with an energy source that is now in place.
In the throne speech there is one item which gives me cause for concern, and this is the projection of Canadian ownership of our petroleum industry to the extent of 50 per cent by the year 1990. I do not understand how this can occur unless we are talking about nationalization. I do not understand how we can in fact achieve 50 per cent Canadian ownership without massive government involvement. I think that the government must be more clear in designating how this is to occur and what technique will be used.
Tourism is an ongoing important source of revenue and it is also a source of employment in Bruce-Grey as in many other areas of Canada. Tourism can be seen to be neglected by the Speech from the Throne. My hope would be that we will give more attention to this in the coming months. A specific national tourist policy and specific initiatives to help the
industry develop could help local economies and Canada's balance of trade deficits.
Railways and mass transportation systems of the last decade are inadequate for present needs. It is encouraging to note a recognition of this in the throne speech, but little comfort is seen in the lack of specific planning except for the wheat transportation improvements already initiated by the last government. The deterioration of facilities almost guarantees continued loss of current rail services. I believe a review process, the so-called rationalization of rail services, that is taking place now for the first time in Canada in our own area should provide an excellent prototype for the development of a national, economically-viable, integrated rail system. This integration of systems would allow the use of freight, rail and tourism lines combined together to provide an economically viable unit.
I think it is important that the members of this House remember, while we debate the Speech from the Throne, that the impact of our deliberations will not be felt today but by future generations of Canadians. Therefore, we have an obligation to ensure that our decisions are not based upon selfishness but upon an honest regard for the needs and aspirations of our children.
Governments too often place themselves in positions of serving the desires of today by ransoming the future. Social programs are instituted, non-renewable resources are consumed and new laws are created with a flagrant disregard for the effects that such decisions will have upon the quality of life of our descendants. As representatives of the people, we must keep vigil over their interests. We must attempt to protect the rights not only of the majority, but also those of groups unable to stand in self-defence. Such a group is the young.
The young are eager to prove themselves. They want to get out in the world and establish their credibility. This is a task which is becoming increasingly difficult. No longer is an education enough to get a secure and well-paying job; no longer is a home within the means of most young Canadians; no longer can the young look forward to the standard of living that we promised them.
What promise does this throne speech, this government, hold out to the young? Oh, yes, I see a reference to creating new jobs. But what does this mean? Does it mean a new opportunities for youth program? If so, it will not be of much use to Bruce-Grey or, for that matter, many other parts of the country. We need permanent, meaningful employment, not band-aids. We need protection from interest rates so that young people will be able to continue the family farm or business. We need new industry and new jobs based not upon the wishes of a bureaucracy, but upon the real needs and the vast potential of our country. We need to put an end to inflation so that once again young people will feel secure enough to be able to own a home and raise a family.
We need to re-examine the educational system and the role it plays in preparing young Canadians for what lies ahead. This may mean an increased concentration on skills training, but it definitely means that access to education must be
April 17, 1980

affordable. We need to be able to assure the young that we have taken adequate precaution to preserve a secure source of energy for the future. We need to come to terms with our environment in such a way as to protect valuable farm land and vacation areas from the challenges posed by pollution, and thus save these resources for our future needs.
But most of all we need to be able to convince the young that they have a government which is committed to looking out for their interests. This implies a government which is willing to set an example, a government which is willing to provide some standards by which the young may judge themselves. In short, it requires a government which understands the needs of Canada and is willing to respond with vigour and determination.
While providing for the economic well-being of the nation, the government must also prove that it has an understanding of laws that give a country its spirit. It must be willing to enforce those laws which are just and should change those which are not.
If I could be allowed to digress again for a moment, the government must be able to understand the need for capital punishment as well as a tightening of the abortion laws. I have yet to be convinced that the government is capable of that level of understanding. For example, the government has stated its intent to decriminalize simple possession of cannabis. I would hope that the government would place careful consideration into the framing of such legislation. I for one do not believe that the government should take any steps which might lead Canadians to believe that this Elouse supports the use of marijuana. On the other hand, it is important that young people not be faced with the spectre of a criminal record for experimenting with a habit which has received tacit approval from certain sectors of our society.
Cannabis serves as an excellent example of a policy area where a decision made today could have serious detrimental effects upon our country a few years down the road. Recent information more and more points to the likelihood of cannabis being dangerous to one's health. Just as we must worry about the dangerous effects of giving young men and women criminal records, we must also worry about the dangerous effects of the widespread use of drugs. The government will not receive my support for any piece of legislation that does not include substantial penalties for those who traffic in drugs.


An hon. Member:: Elear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: Furthermore, I believe it essential that the government ensures that a program of drug education is instituted to teach young Canadians about the possible effects of marijuana use.
Today our Canadian family is faced with a predictable circumstance. As dependencies between the Canadian parent and the provincial offspring have changed with time, so too the formal relationships of these must be re-established. Fate, as a father, has typically wandered off to thrust his proverbial finger in other directions. As a mother, Canada has an historical and geographical bonding with her provincial children that
The Address-Mr. Pinard
will withstand politics, economics and even temporary insanity so long as our borders are secure from external forces. Even as we continue our constitutional and referendum debate, the failure to recognize the extraterritorial threat handicaps us, because by recognizing it fully the crisis could help reaffirm the bonding and secure our family unit.
By not recognizing the Russian military and political expansion for what it is, we contribute to the increased isolation and vulnerability of our provinces and our country. The purchase of new fighter aircraft and a recommitment to our full part in NATO is a hopeful indication that this government recognizes the threat, and in the face of this crisis will do its part to secure peace and a continuation of confederation.
I thank Mr. Speaker and my colleagues for the opportunity of joining them in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, earlier today during the question period one of my colleagues asked me a question to which of course 1 gave the best possible reply under the circumstances, but I would have liked to be much more precise. The colleague who put the question is a federal member from the province of Quebec who seemed concerned about the time available to him to play effectively his role as a legislator in the Canadian Parliament while supporting those who are fighting for a united Canada in the present referendum debate in Quebec.
My colleague was wondering whether as government leader in the House and as President of the Privy Council I could not assure him that he would have the necessary time to discharge the double task entrusted to him. And I have every reason to believe that since he was chairman of the Quebec caucus in Ottawa he was speaking for most if not all of his colleagues. I replied that of course our mandate will be practically double during the coming days and weeks. Double in the sense that first we have a mandate and a duty to govern this country and at the same time we have to get involved and help our brothers and sisters in Quebec who do not want to abandon Canada and are anxious to fight for building a strong and united Canada. It is in that context that I had to reply that I would have to co-operate with the official opposition and the New Democratic Party and rely on their co-operation.
The aspect on which I would like to dwell at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, is that of course all hon. members wish for a majority of No votes in the referendum which will be held on May 20 next and of course all hon. members would like to contribute directly or indirectly to that victory for Canada. I would respectfully suggest that one way of contributing even indirectly would be to allow the proceedings in the House in the weeks to come, as an example for the future,

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Pinard
to get on in the most complete harmony among all parties without denying the right and privilege of the opposition parties to criticize government measures thoroughly but not dilatorily.
Today 1 call upon the sense of responsibility of the opposition parties so that we and all members of the House who so desire can, in the next few weeks, organize rationally their work schedule and devote all their time and energy to not only governing the country, which of course is essential, but also to defending the cause of Canada and of Quebeckers who want to stay in Canada, in their country, in the province of Quebec.
I am sure that my colleagues will give me their full co-operation, and I refer specifically to the House leaders of the two opposition parties. 1 am sure that they are aware of the very positive role they can play in the present debate, not by relinquishing their right, as opposition parties, to criticize government legislation, but by showing as much flexibility and co-operation as possible to allow us parliamentarians from Quebec especially to meet both objectives and fulfil both roles so that we can help govern Canada and work towards its unity.
Mr. Speaker, I entered politics for a very simple reason. It was not for a question of boundaries, but for the economic and social well-being of the region I come from. 1 entered politics to improve the social and economic conditions of my province and also of my country, Canada. When 1 first ran, in 1974, in the riding where I was born, a region based on the textile industry, a region, I would say, of average economic growth rate, my objective was, and that is the expression 1 used, to go into public life in the hope of trying to make people smile. My objective was to try and make the people from my region, my province, my country happier. It is as simple as that. In the present debate, in the referendum debate, it is in that spirit that I will deal with the question that is asked of my fellow citizens, both men and women, from Quebec.
It seems that since the debate on the referendum question in the National Assembly, a large number of my fellow citizens in the province of Quebec are somehow hypnotized by glib, pompous speakers, albeit short on logic.
The danger is that during. that debate in the National Assembly when the referendum question was supposed to be discussed, they dealt with everything except the question itself. And as a member from an area where 99 per cent of the people are ordinary people, in the coming days and the coming weeks I want very much the debate to be brought down to their level so that they may understand. I would like the debate that the Pequistes have been conducting at the level of academics to be stopped so that the people in Quebec may be told very simply: Well, we have a question to put to you, this is the question, and that is where the answer we want will lead you. And what is happening now is that all sorts of gratuitous assertions are being made, as mentioned by previous speakers, assertions which are not based on facts, are often misleading and have the effect of hypnotizing my fellow citizens, as I said
earlier. So what I want to do today actually is to warn my fellow citizens against what is going on now and prompt them to give much thought to the matter, if they are asked a question, to analyse its content and take into consideration who is asking it.
In my riding of Drummond, Mr. Speaker, there are textile workers, workers in small and medium-sized business and industrial milk producers. That is fairly characteristic of several areas in the province of Quebec. They are hard-working people. They are people for whom bread and butter issues, economic issues are vital in that debate. And it is very important that they know that a Yes or No can have serious consequences and repercussions on their lives after the May 20 referendum.
So I ask those people to consider two things: first, and it is normal, someone is asking you a question that you will have to answer on May 20. We should ask ourselves first who asked the question, because before we give an answer, it is always important to know who asked for something, and for what? We can appreciate the answer is very simple but we must be careful because it is an important question; and it is also important to know who asks the question, it is a question of credibility. The question is asked by the government of the Parti Quebecois. The question has been prepared and adopted by the majority of a political party, a party whose program is seeking very clearly the independence of Quebec. So, in the beginning, it is important to indicate to all those ordinary people that someone wants an answer, they want a Yes from you. Those people are members of a political party in Quebec which is dedicated to the separation and independence of Quebec. That is the primary reason to be careful, to be fully aware of the fact that the Parti Quebecois refused to really debate the question at the National Assembly a few weeks ago. What is really the question being asked by politicians of the Parti Quebecois who want Quebec to be independent? Well, let us have a look at the wording of the question. We will not likely be mistaken if we look at the second paragraph of that long question, and I quote:
That agreement will allow Quebec to gain exclusive power to pass its legislation, to collect its taxes and to establish its foreign relations, which is sovereignty and at the same time, association.
The question is crystal clear, Mr. Speaker. The Parti Quebecois wants a Yes for a mandate to negotiate sovereignty, which is synonymous with independence and separation. So the ordinary people from my riding, who work for average wages and who, when unemployed because of difficult economic times, avail themselves of the very generous unemployment insurance plan we have developed in this country, those same people who, when sick, benefit from medical and hospital care or, when aged, receive old age security pensions, these same people have the right to ask themselves: the political party which is asking me this question wants to say Yes to the independence of Quebec, that political party wants me to give
April 17, 1980

it a mandate to negotiate the separation of the province of Quebec and at the same time achieve economic association, an impossibility in itself, considering what the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada have said, namely that sovereignty was not negotiable and that we did not have the mandate to negotiate it.
The important thing is to say to these people: Listen, the Parti Quebecois is asking you to agree to a mandate to negotiate Quebec independence. If you are asked to say Yes to this question, you are entitled to demand that they prove clearly that following this mandate, you will live in economic and social conditions at least as good as those which now prevail. Mr. Speaker, the burden of proof lies with those who want to break up a country to attempt to create another one.
It is up to the Parti Quebecois to show the ordinary citizens of Quebec and to all Quebeckers that once this mandate is obtained, these people will be as well off as they are now. The question I am asking it is a legitimate one. The Parti Quebecois supporters are the ones who want to change the order of things, they are the ones who want to change federalism for an independent Quebec in the more or less short term, and it is up to them to prove conclusively that if they obtain this mandate, the ordinary citizens whom they seem to want to exploit by calling unduly on a so-called pride will be able to live in conditions at least as good as those they now enjoy. God knows that this proof is far from made.
We are now living, as we are well aware, in a province, and a country, which have virtually the most advanced social legislation in the world.
We live in a rich country, and those who want to change the order of things, the political status of part of this country, should at least have the decency to show clearly to Quebec citizens that they will enjoy at least the same economic and social advantages as those for which I have been fighting since my arrival on the political scene. However, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that they will have the honesty to debate the issue at this level. Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to those whom I represent more particularly because I know them well. Let us talk about the textile workers. They are well aware that in the last few years the Canadian government has succeeded in negotiating bilateral agreements with seven, eight, or nine southeastern Asia countries to limit imports of clothing manufactured at a lower cost to allow our textile industry to be more competitive and more efficient.
These quotas were imposed by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce (Mr. Chretien) and were renewed last year, that is quite recently, for three years and even five in some cases. The simple fact of limiting clothing imports forces citizens in other parts of Canada to pay more for their clothes. It is obvious that if fewer shirts made in Hong Kong reach our market, British Columbia or Alberta citizens will have to purchase a shirt made in Canada which will cost more than if it came from Hong Kong.
The Address-Mr. Pinard
Mr. Speaker, we now have Canadian men and women who are willing to pay more for their clothes because they agree to some degree to protect our textile industry. And by protecting our Canadian textile industry to some degree we are protecting those jobs. There is another way in which the government protects our textile and clothing industry to some degree, because that protection is always limited, and this is the GATT and its agreements on tariffs and quotas on textile and fibre imports.
When we put together those two Canadian policies, the result of sound federalism, we see that our Canadian textile industry is able to fare better, perform better, and as a consequence prevent the erosion of its workers' standard of living and job security in general. This way we can save hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Canadian textile and clothing industry in Canada, thanks to our sound Canadian policies in that area. Those policies have been implemented and made possible because Canada was powerful enough to reach bilateral agreements, as I said, with seven, eight or nine countries, and also achieve favourable results at the Geneva talks under the GATT.
What I am asking from the Pequistes who are soliciting a Yes vote which means a mandate to separate Quebec from Canada, is that they prove, since the burden of proof is on them, to the textile workers in my constituency of Drummond, and everywhere in Quebec, that the morning after their mandate there will not be such insecurity that Canadians will not feel inclined to put pressure on the government to be able to buy their clothes cheaper, and that the morning after Quebec is sovereign we will enjoy similar protection for the textile industry which accounts for the majority of jobs in the province of Quebec. This is my first question to them.
I would also like to ask them to prove to my voters, to my textile workers, just how, in the wake of Quebec sovereignty, independence or separation since that is what it is called, there could be as many jobs and as sound health standards as there are now, for these are due, chiefly, to federal policies in this sector.
About 15 years ago the textile industry employed 45 per cent of all the industrial manpower in my area. At this very moment, it hardly employs 8 per cent of active manpower in the riding of Drummond. What has happened in the meantime? A department which was created here in Ottawa in 1969, the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion, tries to redress regional inequalities and it had a very positive impact on areas such as the one 1 represent. This, Mr. Chairman, is another positive aspect of our brand of federalism. By injecting capital supplied by this Department, we were able to diversify our industry and see to it that jobs in the textile sector which were doomed to disappear because of the modernization of the industry could be transferred to newly created small and medium-sized businesses.

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Pinard
In fact, millions of dollars were spent in the riding of Drummond alone by the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion in an effort to help us achieve this industrial diversification and to provide jobs to our Quebec fellow citizens living in that area. This is another advantage which the Parti Quebecois is duty-bound to mention. It must prove to my fellow citizens in that Drummond riding that the same diversification would be possible in a separate independent Quebec. I am not saying that it will not be done up to a certain point. I ask them to do their duty, because it is up to them to prove it during the referendum campaign. This is what the people want to know. They want to know whether on the first day of sovereignty they will hold the same jobs and get the same social benefits.
Will we have the same freedom, will we be as secure as we are now after having agreed to give the Quebec government the mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association? This question is quite legitimate, Mr. Speaker. It is essential that the Parti Quebecois give the ordinary people in Quebec the proof they ask for and stop spreading these half-truths or untruths in some cases in order to hypnotize the population and take undue advantage of a false sense of pride.
Our approach in this debate is noble, Mr. Speaker. What we say is that it is much more courageous and much more generous to take up the challenge of diversity. Canada has its two founding peoples. Certainly injustice has been committed in the past and I have already indicated in the House that we should not react with frustration and egoism as the PQ would have us do. History should teach us a lesson of generosity and courage.
Our ancestors, Mr. Speaker, have worked hard in this country to give us the wealth we have from one ocean to the other. Our children have the right to insist that we do not take a decision which will deprive them of that wealth they are entitled to. In this country, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to meet a challenge, to go forth on what the Prime Minister often calls the road of excellence and to fight here in Ottawa in order that our two founding peoples may live in harmony and full equality. The fact is that there are many Francophones sitting here in this Parliament.
There are 16 French-speaking members of the cabinet out of 31 or 32. That is a little better than the equality talked about by the Parti Quebecois. What the people are asked in the referendum is for the exclusive right to make laws. They are told: "People of Quebec, you made a mistake last February 18. Some 68 per cent of all of you have sent men and women to Ottawa to make laws, to represent you, to try and bring harmony and development in the strictest equality of a strong and united Canada; you clearly and massively asked those people to act as your representatives, precisely to make laws. Now we tell you to forget that and give us an exclusive
mandate to make laws here in Quebec." I think it is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, and that it is to play a bad joke on people and not respect them to ask them, after they have given their massive support to men and women who are now members of Parliament from Quebec in Ottawa, and proud to be Canadians, for an answer that negates the intentions expressed by the people of Quebec a few weeks ago. That is something the ordinary people should easily understand.
The attitude of the Parti Quebecois toward the injustices I mentioned-this may seem a paradox since they are asking for a Yes vote-is a very negative one. They say: Well, listen, there is nothing else we can do about it, the solution is territorial withdrawal. Let us abandon to their fate a few hundred thousand French-speaking people outside Quebec, let us leave them to their fate, we are going to work it out for ourselves in Quebec, we will make our own laws, we will collect our own taxes. Of course this is not practically feasible without an economic association. However, people know very well that this economic association accompanying sovereignty is not negotiable, that answering Yes to this question would lead Quebec in an absolute dead-end, a cul-de-sac. The result of this dead-end will not be the constitutional changes so greatly hoped for, it will not be a renewed federalism, the result will quite simply be yet more uncertainty, harmful to the economy of this country and particularly to the economy of the province of Quebec. That is another aspect which must be pointed out in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, as it has been said many times over, one can be both a good Quebecker and a good Canadian. I was born in the area I represent and when, over the weekend, with my fellow members of the No committee I launched its campaign in my riding, I said that my soul belonged to Drummondville and my heart to Quebec, but that body and soul I was a Canadian. It is in that spirit that today, as simply as possible, I ask of my fellow citizens of the riding I represent, that when the time comes for them to answer the question which basically constitutes one step towards the independence of Quebec, they reflect seriously upon the element of pride inherent in the gesture that is generous, that is constructive, the gesture which really tries to avoid barriers and boundaries in our society, that we might seek to live in harmony, in as sound and just an economy as possible.
It seems to me that when the time comes to answer that question, the people will have to ask themselves whether the PQ government has proved that, should it be given the mandate to negotiate for every part of the province of Quebec, its citizens will have at least the same advantages they now have. Should the mandate to negotiate be granted, should the Yes have it, will we be proud of having sulked about past injustices, of having followed the examples set by those who were frustrated by history and who preach territorial withdrawal instead of having the courage to build a strong and united Canada under the most flexible system in the world which can
April 17, 1980

function perfectly only when its members, men and women alike, really want to negotiate and talk to each other.
Mr. Speaker, I can give you more that one example of what I have just asserted. Mr. Levesque already has the mandate to negotiate the best terms possible for the people of Quebec: he has it now. When twice he slammed doors in our faces here in Ottawa during federal-provincial conferences, he had the mandate to improve the economic and social conditions of the citizens of Quebec. In fact, that is the mandate he was given when he was elected: give Quebec a good government. But instead of negotiating, he came here with the deliberate intention of proving that no success was possible in negotiations with the Canadian government and the governments of the other provinces. He is a slave to the program of his party, he must achieve the independence of Quebec and his strategy is very simple: slam doors here in Ottawa and implement the good recommendations of his chief advisor "Pere Gedeon", that is, achieve independence on the QT.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is what Quebec people must know. With his referendum, Mr. Levesque is putting into action a carefully planned strategy whereby twice he would slam doors here on the economic and social development of Quebec and Canada, and now, claiming his so-called pride to be a Quebecker, he is asking a mandate to come and negotiate the impossible. And then he would be able to return to the men and women in Quebec and say: "You see, they refuse to negotiate sovereignty-association. So, give us the authority to separate." He will have achieved what he set out to do and he will have completed his carefully planned strategy. People must be made aware of this.
People must consider this question in the context of the PQ election in 1976 up to the independence of Quebec which is part of the PQ platform. And this question is nothing more than a step toward the independence of Quebec. And I say to my fellow Canadians that we can be proud to be Canadians, to vote No to such a question, to work in a Canada where we feel fine as Quebeckers, to live as I do in Drummondville and to follow the road of excellence and courage rather than the path of defeatism and separation from a country and wealth which belong to us and our children.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say "There cheers for Nova Scotia". It is nice to have the kind of ally he has been for Nova Scotians during the period that he and I have served together in the House of Commons.
This is a rather different Parliament for me from any of the nine previous in which I have served, different because the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker is no longer with us. While he did not sit in the last Parliament he was elected to it, and he added much indeed to the folklore of this nation from every
The Address-Mr. Coates
point of view, much to the history of Canada, much to the commitment as one individual to one Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the 49th parallel to the Arctic, and much to make Canada a better place for all of us to live. I miss him very much and I am sure that there are many other Canadians like me who miss him a great deal, especially in troubled times like these when we could always look upon him as a great champion for the people of Canada regardless from where they came, regardless of their ethnic extraction, regardless of their role in life. Whether they be the high and mighty or the lowly, he was their friend, their champion. He was special.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: As I listened to the speeches made by my colleagues from the province of Quebec, I can only say to them that they carry a very heavy burden these days for all Canadians. 1 wish them well. I wish them success because, from a parliamentary point of view, our fate as a nation in many ways rests in their hands. They are our delegates to take our message to the people in their province telling them how much we want them to continue to be a part of the Canada we know today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I say that in many ways I miss the fact that we do not have the former Speaker with us. Over a period of time as the chairman of the management and members' services committee I came to have a high degree of respect for the fairness and for the capacity of James Jerome. He was an outstanding representative in the Parliament of Canada. He was the first among equals in this House for a long period of time. He did his job with exceptional impartiality, and 1 am sure all of us who were here and served with him will miss him; but at the same time we wish him well in the new, heavy responsibilities he has assumed in the Federal Court of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Today, Canadians almost appear determined to involve themselves in a form of constitutional masochism, whether it be Quebec separatism or western alienation, rather than accepting the God-given advantages that almost make us the mother-lode of this planet.
At a time when the world is broadening its horizons, when new economic and political unions are binding areas of the earth together, when these new unions are cutting through narrow nationalistic ties, without threatening those nationalistic bonds and achieving significant economic benefits, it seems almost impossible to conceive that we would consider marching down a road that could ultimately destroy this confederation.
We now know that the agony of the present debate in Quebec on the specific matter of sovereignty-association- whatever that means-will end on May 20. In view of the fact that the issue seems little more than an operation in frustra-
126

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Coates
tion, since all of Quebec's partners have indicated no willingness to discuss the matter after May 20, what is to be gained by Quebec or the nation is beyond my comprehension. 1 wish my colleagues in this House my very best wishes as they put forward the many sound and sensible reasons for maintaining this union that has been of such tremendous benefit to all in this nation and comparatively provides so much more to those who live here than is possible almost anywhere else in the world.
And yet with all of this evidence marshalled on the side of retaining our confederation, it seems that everywhere one goes in Canada today and from what we read and hear in the media leads one to conclude that the most common feeling or perception is that Canadians are puzzled, apprehensive and nervous about the future. A sense of malaise is widely prevalent across the land.
How can we account for this widespread feeling of malaise and apprehension? 1 do not profess to be any great analyst of the condition of modern society. I do not understand the jargon and many of the concepts that some of the so-called analysts use. Sometimes I wonder if they do so themselves, but 1 think having been re-elected successfully ten times to this House, having served as president of my party and having known and worked with a great many politicians over 23 years, I think this gives me some credentials to answer the basic question which is being asked more and more these days at home and abroad: "What seems to have gone wrong with Canada?".
It may well be that our thoughts have centred on our own deficiencies because we have been involved almost totally in the electoral process since. 1978. It is often said that one cannot see the forest for the trees. We have not been looking at what has been actually happening in the world, although we know with the energy crisis that has been upon us since the early 1970s that OPEC, by using the vehicle of an international economic union, has caused havoc with the financial viability of the industrialized world.
With the EEC we have witnessed, once again, that the economic clout of Europe has been enhanced without any real erosion, feared by many, occurring to the participating nations.
We hear a great deal of the economic nationalism that frightens many because of what they perceive to be the economic domination of our industrial base by the multinational corporations that are mainly based in the United States. What we do not seem to want to face up to is the fact that Canadians are traders and have proven over our 113-year history to be good traders. Indeed, the people from my province were expert traders long before there was a Canada, and indeed provided a success story prior to confederation that has not been equalled since 1867.
If we are to enjoy the benefits that match our potential we must look outward, not inward. We must look at the total North American continent, Canada, the United States and Mexico, and decide how as the people of this continent we can harness the possibilities that exist.
Let me say that I welcome the forthcoming visit of the President of Mexico and hope his visit will provide a productive opportunity for some discussions about the many common interests we share with that great nation. Mexico has come alive as a vital and vibrant nation in the new economic order. It, like Canada, sits on the border of the economic giant of the free world. It, like Canada, must face up to the identity problem that comes from being a neighbour of this great nation.
But neither Canada nor Mexico can achieve anything but benefits from charting a course that takes advantage of the possibilities that accrue from the fact that 220 million or more people in the United States provide a market, close at hand, with fewer obstacles than exist anywhere else on earth.
Let me just stress a few realities. Our economic relationship with the United States is overwhelming. Our Canadian investment patterns are showing a strong thrust into the U.S.; more and more Canadians are buying properties in the U.S.; and on all the big issues in the world our interest and those of the Americans are identical.
We are currently wrestling with the issue of the Olympic boycott. Our citizens feel as the Clark government felt when we stated we would also support that boycott. We are now awaiting the decision of the Trudeau government. I would feel a deep sense of betrayal for our best friend if our positions were to be anything other than the positive one taken by the Clark government.
We are indeed fortunate to have as the United States ambassador to Canada the hon. Kenneth Curtis. Ken Curtis has a history of a lifetime of close association with Canada. When governor of the state of Maine, he spearheaded the development of a formalized association between the governors of the New England states and the five eastern provinces of Canada. He later assumed heavy obligations within his own political party, the Democratic party, as chairman of their organization.
We then have in Canada today a man of significant ability, one who knows Canada well and knows the United States and its political institutions in a way not available to most in that nation, and who has already displayed a special and unique style of diplomacy in international affairs in our midst. What better man could be found to help us embark upon a new initiative in North American relations?
1 have been impressed with the amount of activity of a positive nature that has been developing in recent years regarding closer arrangements between Canada and the United States. 1 refer to the Canadian Senate and especially its standing committee on foreign affairs. That committee produced a most helpful report on Canada's trade relationship with the United States. There are also the reports of the C. D. Howe Research Institute and reports of the sub-committee of the United States Senate chaired by Senator Baucus.
But one of the most imaginative suggestions I have seen comes from a former adviser to my leader, Mr. Duncan
April 17, 1980

Edmonds, who has developed proposals that could lead to a treaty of North America. Mr. Edmonds has established himself as a significant person in the political, academic and business community, as a man of great foresight in national and international affairs. His production of a draft treaty approach among Canada, the United States and Mexico provides the catalyst for the type of discussion that can only be of value and benefit for all who live on the North American continent. Mr. Edmonds' provocative proposals have recently been published in a number of Canadian newspapers across Canada, as well as being reprinted in the congressional record. 1 believe that Mr. Edmonds' analysis and suggestions for a closer structured relationship with the United States and Mexico would benefit all three countries and would certainly work to greatly strengthen Canada.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House some very interesting developments which have been stimulated by the national governors' association of the United States. That body today, comprised of the governors of all 50 states of the United States, has recently passed a detailed resolution earlier this year, from which 1 quote:
Finally and most importantly, the federal government is encouraged to explore the possibility of immediate trilateral discussions concerning the establishment of an appropriate forum for discovering potential areas of future co-operation. Such a forum whether achieved through existing or newly created channels, should:
1)	Guarantee the integrity and interest of each country;
2)	Ensure that areas identified for study and discussion are agreed upon by full consensus;
3)	Provide for equal representation for each country;
4)	Ensure, in addition to federal participation, adequate representation from state and provincial governments, local governments and the private sector; and
5)	Reserve actual policy decisions to the sovereign discretion of each country.
The chairman of the international trade committee of the national governors' association, governor Busbee of Georgia, has in co-operation with the Dean Rusk Centre at the University of Georgia produced some very excellent material,including a very major fact book and a very substantive memorandum on how we might proceed to get a greater degree of co-operation between Canada and the United States. I recommend that those who believe there is the type of merit 1 see in such future initiatives look closely at the proposal from the Dean Rusk Centre for the establishment of a North American council. Quoting from their report of November 16, 1979, on North American co-operation, they state on page 12:
The centrepiece of the proposed National Governors' Association initiatives is a trilateral framework organization, which will serve as the most visible manifestation of the willingness of all three countries to solve continental problems through a continental approach, while ensuring the participation of those parties most actively involved in North American affairs.
As is generally the case with framework organizations, the North American council would be primarily consultative in nature, with most of its work carried out in the normal activities of its membership. During the initial phase at least, plenary sessions of the council would be utilized to flesh out the commitment of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. to a trilateral decision-making approach, establish personal contacts among the representatives, and set up a system for communications to ensure the continuation of council work in the interim period. This work can be further defined-and concrete responsibility assigned-by setting up specialized committees (trilateral) and subcommittees (either bilateral or concerned with specific projects) with authority to make findings of fact and
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
recommendations to the council as a whole. Committee and subcommittee members could be left to make mutually convenient arrangements for meetings, timetables, and internal distribution of responsibility. The proposed trilateral communications system will provide the main forum for committee work. The major purpose of the council is to inculcate the habit of trilateral thinking among the decision-making elites of North America. Establishment of full-time representatives-or even a full-time staff, beyond the minimum necessary for administration-would be self-defeating, since the council is designed to reach persons who may spend only a portion of their time in foreign relations matters.
The National Governors' Association can take the initiative in establishing a North American Council and thereby assure itself a leading role in all subsequent trilateral endeavours. With this end in mind, the following steps are recommended:
(1)	NGA should appoint regional committees to contact public and private parties involved in trade or other contacts with Canada and Mexico, to "talk up'' the project, solicit ideas, and obtain pledges of participation and support;
(2)	NGA may then select a number of governors (representing each region) most interested in the project as its delegation to the council;
(3)	Federal authorities should be contacted and a representative group of federal policymakers co-opted to the delegation;
(4)	The delegation should be filled out with business leaders, academicians, and local officials, with the paramount criteria being a position of influence affecting relations with Canada or Mexico and at least general support for the project as a whole;
(5)	NGA should then sponsor a "call" to appropriate institutions in Canada and Mexico for the selection from each country of a delegation equal in number to that chosen by NGA; stipulated as principles for selection should be diversity in both geography and function, experience and authority in North American affairs, and inclusion of private interests.
I believe that there is enormous potential in these developments. In my judgment, the working out of a new set of arrangements with the United States and Mexico will be the dominant question of the 1980s. I commend this material to the House and suggest that it is the area where we can finally rediscover a sense of direction for Canada.
As Sir John A. Macdonald said over a century ago, geography is destiny; and as we move into the 1980s we are very fortunate to live beside the United States and to have an opportunity to work out with them and the Mexicans a closer set of relationships. The new set of relationships should strengthen Canada and should allow us to retain our sovereignty and independence while continuing to make a significant contribution to the world at large.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by reiterating Mr. Edmonds' conclusion in his own proposal:
We have an opportunity to manage the process where history is inexorably taking us anyway. Rarely do a people have the opportunity we have now as Canadians to seize the moment where we are faced with a great national uncertainty and a sense of malaise and to replace that with a dynamic new sense of ourselves in partnership with the whole North American continent. We ought to begin this great task immediately.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Thank you, Mr. President.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I apologize for calling you "President", Mr. Speaker, but I have just spent 18 months in another assembly where the Speaker is referred to as the "President" and it comes automatically.

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
1 am not too sure whether I am to be categorized as a new boy. It is tempting to assume so because it gives me an opportunity to speak about my riding, the riding of Lincoln. I must confess I am rather pleased to be back in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Much has changed, of course. Television and radio, for instance, were not here four years ago. But much remains the same. When I came to the House in 1962 the Speaker was the present hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I sat so far back in the opposition ranks that I refused to sit in that position every time they filled the Rideau canal. I want to welcome the continued presence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), one of the newer members of the Privy Council.
One change 1 note since I was here last is the disappearance of the Social Credit party and, unfortunately, the growth in numbers of the gallant little band of misfits in the corner over there. It is food for thought and, I am sure, for debate in the future.


An hon. Member:: Just wait!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am pleased 1 can still arouse some passion from the hon. member over there. We shall see as the session progresses, though certainly not in this speech.
It goes without saying that all of us in the House of Commons are concerned about the future of this nation. It goes without saying that the issue of the referendum in Quebec is in reality a non-partisan issue in the House of Commons. Certainly from my years of presence in this chamber I know that no particular party, including the Liberal party, has any monopoly of concern for this great country. Some of us in the House, as has been pointed out, do, of course, bear a unique responsibility at this particular moment in Canadian history- the responsibility of convincing millions of Canadians who reside in Quebec that they must reject categorically the inducements of those who would divide this wonderful country.
In the short time during which I have been privileged to represent Lincoln, certainly in the months prior to the election, I have found a surprising similarity between the make up of Lincoln and that of my old riding of Verdun which I represented here for from 1962 to 1976. Verdun could be described as a bedroom community on the outskirts of Montreal and at first glance it would seem to have little in common with the riding of Lincoln, with its large rural population, its fruit growing industry, its wineries, its industrial area outside of Hamilton. In reality, however, the problems of the small businessmen of Verdun and those of the farmers burdened with unnecessary and intolerable high interest rates are very similar.
Then there is a common concern about dumping in the fruit markets. As a Quebecker for years I agonized over dumping and its negative impact on the textile industry. I certainly appreciate the problems of the industrial worker in Hamilton, Stoney Creek or Grimsby who came here not too long ago
from Italy or Spain or Portugal or Yugoslavia and who worries about his inability to purchase a home or make ends meet in facing the present rate of inflation. Regardless of the type of riding we represent, these problems which all of us face represent a common demoninator. So, Mr. Speaker, I look to the transition from one province to another not with trepidation but with interest because of the challenge it presents.
I want to talk now about this country as I see it and I know I am speaking for most members. Those in Quebec who try to portray federalism as a failure are totally inaccurate. Federalism, with all its faults, has been a tremendous success. It has not been a total success, but it has been a tremendous success. There is no country in the world whose citizens have the degree of freedom of expression that we have in this country. We even have the freedom to advocate separation, independence, balkanization, or the total end to the country as we know it. We have freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of religion. Ours is a country which perhaps we take for granted. There are countries which, as many of the new citizens of Lincoln have reminded me, deny their citizens these freedoms, hence their determination to come to this great country. Yes, despite all its faults ours has been a system which has made it possible for the French language and the French culture to survive and prosper, to the betterment of all of this country.
There was a time in Quebec when I could have understood the present movement, even a referendum. It was a time not too many decades ago when French-speaking Canadians in that province felt like second-class citizens. They were denied in too many instances the job opportunities which were rightfully theirs as Canadians. They were denied even in this House of Commons as recently as 1962 bilingualism to the degree we now accept. People in Quebec were denied the right to speak their own language at work in many of the areas of that beautiful province. All of us, then, can understand the anger, passion and resentment of these proud people, with their great heritage and culture.
However, I submit that that threat to the French language and the French culture in Quebec is past. It is behind us, and if there is a threat to the French language and the French culture in Quebec, it is not because Quebec is part of Canada; rather the threat comes from technology and the ability of everybody in that province to tune in to radio, television or what have you-the electronic media-in any language in the world.
So the fight, thank goodness, for equality in that particular area is one that I like to think is over. I might say that there are one million English-speaking Quebeckers who rejoice at the fact that Canadians can live in relative harmony and with total freedom and access to all opportunities in either of the two official languages in this country. Many of the doors that were locked to French-speaking Canadians in the sixties in the business community were also out of bounds to the Irish
April 17, 1980

Canadian, the new Canadian or people of the Jewish faith. Prejudice is all-embracing at times.
This is why the dedicated separatist is now focusing on economics as a reason for independence. Without control of economics you do not control power. Some of the politicians in Quebec, like some of the politicians in other provinces and like some of the politicians in the federal House, lust for power. The question is, what do you do with power after you acquire it? Obviously the Parti Quebecois government is determined, through a policy of gradualism, to control the economic levers of that province at all costs.
The message of the Parti Quebecois to Quebeckers is a seductive one, but when, as I have on occasion in my 18 months in the Quebec assembly, I put the question squarely to this minister or that minister in a little bull session after hours, as we often have here, he was hard pressed to say what single particular power or concession or change in the constitution he would ask for if he had that opportunity because-and I come back to my theme-federalism, despite its faults, has been the proper type of government for this great country of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1 think too, as the debate warms up and as we approach the crucial date, that it is good to remind ourselves that many people who support the cause of separatism in Quebec do so because of a legitimate concern. It is their right in our society to endorse whatever political form of government they wish. Some of them are convinced that unless there is a separate Quebec, their language and their culture shall disappear. Some of them are convinced that economically it is to the best advantage of that province to separate.
It is wrong, as some people may have a tendency to do, to look on people who preach independence or separation as mystics, freaks or aberrations. 1 have found myself in my 18 months in the Quebec assembly almost seduced at times by the eloquence of the arguments which flowed from some people with the intense conviction that it is in the best interest of this country to disintegrate and retain some form of relationship.
I think that in the longer run there is an equally great threat to the future of Canada, and that is if we weaken further the central government in those spheres where it is important for the government to be strong. The greater threat to this country is the perpetuation of regional disparity and inequality of opportunity. If we are going to offer the youngster in the Atlantic provinces the same opportunities we offer the youngster in Central Canada-in Toronto, Montreal or our larger cities which are so close to our great institutions of education and learning-the central government must have the economic means at its disposal to provide those youngsters with equality of opportunity in all fields.
If we deny the central government access to capital-to money-then we will inevitably be denying less privileged provinces equality in such basic programs as medicare and education, and in playing decent roles and having access to the very best professors and universities. They go hand in hand, and if we continue to have no policy or if the central govern-
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
ment is so weakened that the poor grow poorer and the rich grow richer, then it is inevitable that the strains on confederation will be greater in ten years than even that imposed on confederation by the Parti Quebecois in its dedication to two countries.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to tell my fellow citizens from Quebec that this land belongs to every Canadian and that it is unthinkable that the French-speaking Quebeckers choose independence, thus depriving their children and grandchildren of the innumerable advantages offered by Canada. This country was explored by French-speaking Canadians. As soon as the French landed from France on our continent, Mr. Speaker, they went up its rivers, explored its wilderness, set up hamlets and outposts. Quebeckers fought for Canada during two world wars in foreign countries. Their poets, writers, politicians, intellectuals, businessmen, have all contributed largely to the development of what can be considered as one of the most prosperous and freest countries in the world.
Those who dare suggest to Quebeckers that, after all that, they should give up what they have contributed to and take the road to independence cannot pretend to care for the interests of Quebeckers. We would rather be led to believe that those who are advocating that careless action line are more interested in power than in justice.

Finally, I would say that regardless of the outcome of the referendum-perhaps particularly if the No vote succeeds, and I say "if because it is "iffy", if you like-constitutional change must cede to the provinces those powers that are needed to retain regional differences, cultural traits and the unique way of life of the maritimes and the west. At the same time I repeat that it must strengthen the central government in those areas where it is important that the central government have the power and the resources to equalize opportunity in this great country.
One of the advantages which I know new members will appreciate in this House-a fringe benefit, I may add-is an opportunity to see Canada to the degree that is denied most Canadians because of the vastness of this country. I am glad that I have had the opportunity and the inclination to visit the interior of British Columbia, to see for myself the grandeur of the Rockies on a sunny day, to fly over them, to go deep into the Okanagan Valley and wonder at the majestic beauty of that part of the world, to marvel at the wheat fields in the fall and perhaps, to touch bases, in British Columbia and Cape Breton seeking the elusive salmon.


An hon. Member:: What about the Fraser Valley?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Frankly, hon. members will have an opportunity when they visit Quebec to understand its joie de vivre, its excitement. When they hear some of the folk songs, they

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Me Knight
might recognize a little of the music that was brought here from Ireland, if you like, 100 years or so before the conquest. It is that kind of a country, a great country. We must work together to keep it that way.
The hon. member who preceded me quoted at length from a prominent Canadian. Perhaps I might read into the record the views of another Canadian who said the following:
I look to the future of my adopted country with hope, though not without anxiety; I see in the not remote distance, one great nationality bound, like the shield of Achilles, by the blue rim of ocean-I see it quartered into many communities-each disposing of its internal affairs-but all bound together by free institutions, free intercourse, and free commerce; I see within the ground of that shield, the peaks of the western mountains, and the crests of the eastern waves-the winding Assiniboine, the fivefold lakes, the St. Lawrence, the Ottawa, the Saguenay, the St. John, and the basin of Minas-by all these flowing waters, in all the valleys they fertilize, in all the cities they visit in their courses, I see a generation of industrious, contented, moral men, free in name and in fact, men capable of maintaining, in peace and in war, a constitution worthy of such a country.
Those were the words of Thomas Darcy McGee in the confederation debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Mcknight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate Madam Speaker on her appointment. I was first elected to the House in May 1979 and I did not know the former Speaker that well. But during the time that I was here he was fair and impartial, and I am sure that Madam Speaker will follow in his footsteps.
Briefly, I would like to say thank you to the people of Kindersley-Lloydminster for returning me to the House of Commons. It is an honour I greatly appreciate, and I commit myself to representing them in the House of Commons to the best of my ability. But as a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, from one of the western provinces, I took exception in the throne speech to the reference that was made to the elected members of the three westernmost provinces, that we have a special responsibility to our constituents in this Parliament and that we have a special responsibility to represent our constituents to the nation and the nation to our constituents.
What is the nation? Is the nation only central Canada? Is the nation only Ontario or Quebec? I can only agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was the last person in Canada to lecture western members of Parliament on their responsibilities to their constituents. The throne speech sets out the Trudeau Liberal policy to rob western Canada of its resources.
We have heard much in this debate about why we have Canada. I want to say at the outset that I think we will have Canada and I will work to have Canada. But we cannot have Canada when we sell our resources and our products at less than world prices and pay greater than world prices for those things that we buy from the rest of Canada. My region of Canada has long been neglected by Liberal governments. After hearing the Speech from the Throne, I think again we will be neglected by the present Liberal government.
I know that there are inequities in Canada. There are inequities in the Atlantic Region, in British Columbia, in Ontario and in Quebec, but those inequities have developed over the last twelve years, the twelve years that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been the Prime Minister of Canada. Having a debate on national unity, and having the forces to try to keep Canada together under the control of the Liberal government would be like putting a coyote in Saskatchewan in charge of the chicken coop.
In the throne speech the hopes and aspirations of the people of Canada, particularly the people of western Canada, were ignored. It made mention of railways and ports. It pointed out how important the railroads were to the development in the 1800's. Let me say they are still important. They have not finished what they started, and we would hope that they would be instructed to do so.
There is mention of the government's commitment to upgrading rail and port facilities, but there are already concerns expressed by producers in western Canada about the statements made by ministers of the Crown, including statements made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I do not doubt that they are mixed up and I can understand why they are confused as to the direction of this government.
Let me refer to the Prince Rupert grain terminal at the port of Prince Rupert. The senator for economic development stated on April 2 that the minister did not understand what the Minister of Transport was up to. On April 9 the senator responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said in the strongest terms that the government will go ahead with the terminal at Prince Rupert. On April 16, in the other place, the government leader of the Senate said:
Negotiations are, as I said, proceeding today, but the present plan involves a significant portion of that coming in the form of a grant. May I suggest to the hon. senator that the essence of this proposal varies not one whit from the agreement that was originated by the previous Liberal government-
I would just like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to say that there was not any agreement by the past Liberal government. The understanding of an agreement was negotiated by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) after he had been in that portfolio for two months.
I will give you a brief history. The then minister of transport, now no longer in this House, in 1978 offered $16.3 million in federal funds to the port of Prince Rupert. It was the understanding of the consortium that this was in the form of a grant. Shortly after the minister said it was not in the form of a grant, the funds were to be found in accordance with that famous saying, "user-pay" the minister implemented.
The negotiations developed a little more and the consortium became ever more convinced that it was being asked to pay an inordinate amount of the infrastructure; no longer $16 million but $45 million, of which it was being asked to cover $27 million for the Ridley development, to the greater glory of the National Harbours Board, the coal companies of Canada, whoever the consortium bought.
April 17, 1980

The consortium objected strongly to having to provide the $20 million performance bond demanded by the National Harbours Board. The consortium objected strongly to the concept of a through-put charge. It was a means of recovery by the National Harbours Board of its costs. The National Harbours Board was requesting a 15 per cent to 18 per cent return on its funds invested for the complete recovery in 20 years.
1 should just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there was not any agreement. The only agreement was the agreement put into effect by the hon. member for Vegreville.
Already in Saskatchewan, and in western Canada as a whole, we hear concern expressed about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. Of all the choices available to this government as a representative of the people of Saskatchewan, this government chose the one with the least ties to my province; this government chose one with no ties to the Liberal party of Saskatchewan; no ties to the NDP of Saskatchewan, and certainly no ties to the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan.
Our people in Saskatchewan would have been well served had this government chosen the Senator from Prince Albert or the Senator from Saskatoon, or even the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) who, 1 know, would have served western Canada well. I had the opportunity to get to know and understand the hon. member for St. Boniface while on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which I had the honour to chair in the last House. He would have been a great champion of western Canada, and that is perhaps why he was not included in the cabinet. I think maybe-I do not think, 1 know-that the Prime Minister chose the wrong member from Manitoba to represent western Canada.
We in my part of Canada, Saskatchewan, have had the problems and promise of Confederation for 113 years. The major concern and the major problem for those 113 years have been in respect of transportation. How do we move our grain? How do we move our potash? How do we move our oil, and how do we move our coal? We move these products, or the majority of them, by rail. In the words of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall:
Transportation in western Canada is a most important component of its economic and social structure. It has-since confederation-been an instrument of public policy and a tool of development.
The only commitment we have heard from this government, and the only commitment we heard during the campaign, was that of double tracking. I cannot believe that the hon. member from Cornwall, who was the transportation critic, or the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) who is very knowledgeable about transportation, would put that into a policy bulletin.


An hon. Member:: Why not? They have double tracked everything else.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No, they double back. The only thing that comes to my mind is that it had to be put in by that senator-in-waiting from Saskatchewan, that twice defeated candidate in Assiniboia. There is no justification for someone to say that the Liberal government has studied it and is closely
The Address-Mr. McKnight
informed about it, particularly when ministers come out and say they can do this very cheaply and very easily. They have suggested that what they will do is join the rail sidings at elevators. This would be fine if they were all on the left-hand side of the track or all on the right-hand side of the track, but they are not. There are some on the left and some on the right, and you would have the railroad track go like that. I do not think that even the Minister of Transport could run trains that way.
Double tracking is not a joke, unless double tracking is talked about from Winnipeg to Vancouver. Double tracking is old hat to the railroads. The CN has been planning double tracking west of Edmonton since the early 1970s. The CPR now has four double tracking programs, three of them under construction, and the fourth, the Beaver Tunnel, is still in the planning stage. The expansion west of Edmonton and Calgary is expensive and necessary, but 1 did not hear any commitments from this government in the throne speech to finance the cost of $2.7 million per mile. The only comments that I have heard about financing were made by the Minister of Transport who has said that the method of raising the capital may be the resolution of the Crow rate. That means that the farmers of Canada will pay the per mile rate which totals $2.7 million.
The same minister has also said that the Crow rate is an impediment. He went on to say that if we cannot change the Crow rate now, in a time of growth and prosperity, we may have missed our time in history. I would like to say to members opposite that if the Crow rate is changed now they will have more than missed their place in history, they will disappear completely in the history of that part of western Canada.
Although the fact is not very well known, Saskatchewan is an oil-producing province. Most people think that Alberta is the only oil-producing province in Canada. Other oil-producing provinces are British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Newfoundland. However, 1 would like to talk about Saskatchewan and the resources which belong to the people of that province. Saskatchewan gained control of its resources in 1930 under the Resources Transfer Act. They were not given to us when we entered confederation, but they were given to us in 1930 by a Conservative government. Alberta received its resources under the same act.
In the Speech from the Throne we do not see these resources being treated as resources but as a public utility. They are not a public utility. They are resources which belong to the people of Saskatchewan. I would like to hear other members from Saskatchewan who are not in my party stand for the people they represent in that province, not for the people of Ontario and the Canadian Labour Congress, but for the people of Saskatchewan who elected them and who will re-elect them if they do not sell out to big interests and big labour unions.


An hon. Member:: That's your problem; that was your government's policy.

The Address-Mr. McKnight


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We had a policy, but you did not give us time to implement it.


An hon. Member:: That's your problem.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It was your motion, but if you wish to interrupt and get on to last year's problems-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt, but would the hon. member address his remarks to the Chair?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We have heard talk, Mr. Speaker, of heritage funds. Saskatchewan, as well as Alberta, has a heritage fund, although it is not as large as Alberta's fund. It is not one tenth as large as Alberta's heritage fund. Saskatchewan's heritage fund contains approximately $600 million which is broken down into $350,000 in cash, $18 million in investments, and the balance invested in Saskatchewan government corporations which pay no interest and therefore there is no return to the people of Saskatchewan.
The pricing system of our resources must be based on the same pricing system as that of the other provinces. Why is there an export tax for the sale of oil outside Canada? There is no export tax on the sale of hydroelectric power from Quebec to the United States. There is no export tax on gold exported from Ontario. There is no tax on Ontario's nickel or Quebec's asbestos, so why is there an export tax on oil? I am sorry to have mentioned this fact, because with the present government's inclination toward taxation it will probably tax the products of the provinces that I have mentioned.
What do we produce in the province of Saskatchewan? We produce grain which is sold on the world market at the world price, the price which the farmer can get. When we buy goods in Canada, it is under the protection of a tariff. When we try to sell all our oil resources it must be according to a blended price, not a world price! Saskatchewan has shared greatly with the rest of Canada and will continue to share, but we do not like to have our resources treated in the export market differently from the resources of the rest of the country. We would like to have our resources treated in the same way. We do not have a blended price for nickel or asbestos, but a price which the market will bear.
With the present government's lack of commitment to energy self-sufficiency, we will continue to pay large subsidies for the importation of oil into Canada. We in western Canada pay for the subsidy through taxation, and we do not receive the world price for our resources. That is not fair. It is not what Confederation is about, and it is not acceptable to the people of Saskatchewan nor, I am sure, to the other provinces.
Another major resource in Saskatchewan is uranium. The premier of Saskatchewan has spent millions of the taxpayers' dollars to develop this resource. But we cannot develop uranium or the other minerals found in our province unless we know that they will not be taken away from us. We cannot continue
April 17, 1980
to put our tax dollars into development and have it taken out by having to share through lower prices to the rest of Canada.
A great deal of concern has been expressed by some members of the CLC and NDP about development in other countries. I would like the members from Saskatchewan in that party to express the concerns of their constituents for the development of their regions. I hope that they will express these concerns to their leader so that we can get on and develop our part of Canada and contribute to the rest of Canada.
We have made a contribution to Canada, and we will continue to contribute.


An hon. Member:: Practise what you preach.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear some members saying "practise what you preach". Western Canada, through its oil resources, has contributed and will continue to contribute up to $20 million in subsidies to the rest of Canada. Another form of contribution which we make is the two-price wheat system. For those hon. members who do not understand what it is, the two-price wheat system is a system through which the western wheat farmers subsidize the consumers of Canada in the price of bread. This is costing the western Canadian grain farmer over $50 million a year, approximately $1 million a week.
The interest rate is higher now than it has ever been in the history of Canada. The Speech from the Throne recognizes the problem but offers no solution. The burden felt by the farmer and small businessmen of Saskatchewan cannot continue. We presented a small development loan plan which would have substantially reduced the cost of interest to the farm and business communities of Canada. Right now the Farm Credit Corporation is short by $50 million in its funding, $50 million more than it would have been had our government stayed in power. The interest rate for the FCC is 13 per cent. This is the highest in its history, and it comes at a time when there has been a net decrease in farm income in the province of Saskatchewan over the past three years. The effect on farmers is devastating.
Farmers, both young and old, are being forced to sell their land. Unfortunately, in Saskatchewan their land is being sold to the Saskatchewan Land Bank. They are selling to the land bank, which is a system whereby government owns the land and the farmer is a tenant. This is the only option open to some of the young and older farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. If the goal of the government of Saskatchewan is to assist individuals in farming they could do it, presumably, by allowing the farmer to hold the mortgage. That way he would be able to build up equity and eventually own his farm, but there is a socialistic insistence by this government that it own the land. Right now this policy has made the province of Saskatchewan the largest holder of cultivated land in Canada. Over one million acres are owned and controlled by that government.
April 17, 1980

To add insult to injury, the province of Saskatchewan will take freedom away from people who love freedom, from people who came to this country as individuals to make their mark, to better themselves, and make a better life for their families. The Saskatchewan government has set up a committee to study the size of farms, and to limit individual ownership in the province. This is intervention in private life. 1 know that hon. members opposite are not concerned about government intervention because in the throne speech I noticed the creation of four more Crown corporations.


John Edward Broadbent: In Alberta?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Four more Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, and then they make the statement that the people do not want less government but that they want more efficient government. If the record continues as it has in the past, it will not be more efficient, it will be more expensive government.
1 hear a member of the New Democratic Party asking what about Alberta? Well, what about Alberta? We in Saskatchewan know the meaning of government bureaucracy because we have the highest percentage of government employees for our population, west of Ontario. In Ontario it is .99 per cent; in Manitoba, 1.13 per cent; in British Columbia, 1.42 per cent; in Alberta, 2.41 per cent, while Saskatchewan has 2.79 per cent of the population employed by the government.


An hon. Member:: They are a bunch of socialists.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think they are a bunch of socialists!
It was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne that the Post Office was to be made a Crown Corporation. Apparently that is a brand new idea. As I recall, a member of our party was commissioned to do a study of the Post Office. He recommended that it be made a Crown corporation and, Mr. Speaker, if we had continued in office we would have moved in that direction.
I should like to refer to the present situation in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. I know the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) would not understand the postal service in Saskatchewan. I am sure he understands it in Papineau and Montreal, but he does not understand it in rural Saskatchewan. The condition of the post office buildings and the working conditions of the post office employees are abysmal-


An hon. Member:: Pathetic.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Somebody said pathetic, so maybe I could use both words. I suggest to the Postmaster General that he should look at some of these post offices and try to find a washroom, a bright interior-try to find anything in a post office in rural Saskatchewan in my riding of Kindersley-Lloyd-minster that would make it a pleasant experience to work there, or that would make employees happy and comfortable in their jobs.
The Address-Mr. McKnight
That is not the worst of it, however. Now they want to close up on Saturdays and at noon hour. People in rural Saskatchewan drive 20 miles and further to pick up their mail. When you drive 20 miles to pick up your mail you would like to do something else as well. The social and economic problems that will be created by post offices in rural Saskatchewan closing on Saturdays will be the death of some small communities. I know the Postmaster General is concerned with the quality of life in the new suburbs and the cities, and that he is concerned with daily door to door delivery. But when we in Saskatchewan and rural Canada pay 17 cents to mail a letter or a postcard, we at least deserve an open building when we go there to get our mail. I should like the minister to visit these post offices; indeed, he should spend a day in one.
I have an example of the patient waiting of people in Saskatchewan. In a letter to me dated April 8, 1980, the town of Landis informed me that the federal government has been considering upgrading the postal facilities at Landis since 1964. The people of the community forwarded a petition in 1978 requesting improvements, and to date they have not received an adequate response saying when they may expect some action. They are patient; they are in no hurry; it is only 12 years since they asked, and another 12 years later on they will have the same old rundown post office building, and I am sure they will petition again.
Is it any wonder that there is a feeling of alienation in western Canada? Is it any wonder, considering the callous disregard for regional aspirations in all parts of the country apparent in the Speech from the Throne, that the people of Canada arc dissatisfied to the point of wanting to withdraw- to break up Canada? In my part of Canada we have concern. So that hon. members opposite and this government may understand that it is not just one region of Canada that is concerned, I should like to read from the Montreal Gazette of April 15, as follows:
In the western provinces, he said, 32 per cent of the population favour the status quo, compared with 33 per cent in Quebec; 58 per cent of westerners favour change in the form of renewed federalism or independence compared with 59 per cent in Quebec; and 10 per cent of westerners favour joining the U.S. compared with eight per cent of Quebeckers.
These are the figures of the Canada West Foundation given by Stanley Roberts, the former leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Dick Collver.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 should like to indicate my appreciation to my colleagues. My remarks will be brief. I shall try to explain my point of view and my feelings toward our country.
134

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet
1 have expressed the concern from my region of Canada and I feel they are valid concerns. I am speaking for myself, but I sense that particularly among my French Canadian friends there is often a feeling that those of us not from Quebec may not understand and may not care about what happens in that province. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that those of us not from Quebec also understand the problems of Quebec.
I agree with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) who said that by being members of Parliament we will be enriched and will have opportunities that we may not otherwise have had. My colleagues in this party, and the leader of this party, are trying to bring insight and understanding to the aspirations of the people of Quebec, even though they do not live there.
I would implore all sides of this House, particularly those responsible for developing policies and constitutional changes, not to ignore what might be said by those who do not come from Quebec, because we do care about Canada, we do care about Quebec. As a Canadian who has lived most of his adult life in Saskatchewan, 1 care that Quebec stays in Canada. 1 want to say to my fellow-Canadians who live in Quebec: stay in Canada. "Dit Oui". Say no. We want you. We need you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, when we went before the Canadian people last winter, we stated what would be the meaning of our policies if we were re-elected. A few days ago, the throne speech confirmed our intentions of solving the problems experienced by the majority in a way which would favour the majority.
In short, the government has kept its word, as we commonly say. The policy statement of the government introduces realistic measures for all of us, including the communities in the Saguenay and Lake St. John area. That region is one of the most typical and owing to its physical geography and its social fabric, it is one of those parts of the country which could be self-sufficient, if its people so decided. This is surely a caricatural description. However, it explains the character of its inhabitants who have learned to rely on themselves before depending on some external aid.
Madam Speaker, the economy of the region depends, like other outlying regions of Quebec and Canada, on the development of natural resources. In the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean area forestry, mining and hydroelectric industries are predominant. A secondary industry based on these resources has been developed.
After a period of stagnation in the 1960s, the seventies saw a slight increase in population, although lower than the Quebec average. The main centres, towns like Alma, La Baie, Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, as well as the towns in my riding of Roberval, namely Roberval, St-Felicien, Normandin, Mistassini and Dolbeau, of which I am the mayor, encompass about 80 per cent of the total population of the area, which is of approximately 300,000. As in other Quebec regions, and I am thinking here of eastern Quebec, the migration of young people towards Quebec City and Montreal shows that there is still room for improvement and that the people's ingenuity deserves the attention of central governments.
in 1977, Mr. Speaker, in the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, the personal disposable income was 9 per cent lower than the Quebec average and a labour market survey shows that unemployment is far greater than that of Quebec in general. Earnings, as far as employment is concerned, are in the manufacturing industry, especially following the opening of the Donahue plant in St-Felicien, and in the building sector. Since its implementation some months ago, the Alcan development project in Ville-de-la-Baie for example has created over 500 jobs. Besides creating hundreds of jobs, the taxation data centre of Revenue Canada in Jonquiere opens interesting opportunities for the available manpower.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite these important efforts made at developing our region, the backbone of our economy-I am referring to our forestry, mining and hydro industries-require constant attention. Our prosperity depends closely on the development and processing of our resources in these three specialized sectors. But as production becomes more and more specialized, it gets more and more dependent upon the efficiency of government policies and the fluctuations of international markets. Given the fact that these three industries are largely dependent upon government actions, I look forward to the establishment of a coherent industrial policy on the development of remote areas.
In another vein, the emphasis put by the government of Canada on the use of sources of energy other than oil-and I am thinking here, Mr. Speaker, about energy produced from wood scraps, bark, for example-can only promote the competitive accounting of production costs. The consolidation of access roads as envisaged in the Speech from the Throne will provide another element of rationalization of transportation costs which, as everyone knows, are constantly on the rise.
So we can anticipate in the rather near future a framework likely to reassure the main participants in those sectors. 1 note with relief the possible gradual conversion of enormous investments made available in the form of social programs into more productive investments, particularly, as already pointed out by the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), in so far as an industrial strategy will be solidly backed by fiscal and monetary measures more likely to promote reinvestment. I am assuming here a close relationship with the Department of Finance in any step towards regionalization, including the regionalization of the fiscal policy.
Mr. Speaker, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area is known favourably as one of the places in Quebec where pride runs high and the sense of belonging to something is perhaps very
April 17, 1980

deeply rooted. A Jeannois or a Bleuet speaks loudly and does not go unnoticed. Such a will to overcome the humiliations suffered as a result of our remoteness has led us to answer those who reply yes, but your place is far away. Far away from what? It is right to say that we of the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean area are somewhat our own masters.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I would point out the unique testimony in our history of the setting up of Entraide Econo-mique, one of the more progressive financial institutions in Quebec. Started from a simple but good intention less than 20 years ago, that savings co-operative now handling billions of dollars has undoubtedly contributed more in at least the past ten years to the development of small and medium-sized businesses in our area and in Quebec as a whole than all levels of government put together. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is no miracle there.
But there was a certain Jacques Gagnon, a worker from our own region, who 20 years ago, having enlisted the help of other workers, was determined to do something and to enable the people of his own region to help themselves. These people I say have now regrouped around the new president, Mr. Eric Forest. They are still working very hard, not only at the regional level, but also at the provincial level, and I believe that they have now proven themselves completely.
I have quoted this particular example to illustrate what I consider the profound meaning of the present constitutional debate. The main issue concerns on the one hand the distribution of present powers, and on the other the coherent use of the powers already existing. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, in the eventuality of redistribution of jurisdictional areas, we have to take into account the irreversible upward thrust of the regions and I would even suggest, as Senator Maurice Lamontagne said, that no commitment to any constitutional change can be undertaken before we evaluate the impact of these regional characteristics on which our opportunities for economic, social and cultural development will increasingly depend. My experience within regional organizations and as head of a municipal government has convinced me and many others that the real debate does not concern a fight between central powers, but rather the means that those who hold these powers are willing to take to provide the members of regional communities with the control required to better develop the ways of meeting their regional needs.

The upcoming reality tends towards the virtual admission of "small is beautiful". Indeed, no constitutional changes should be initiated without respecting regional assets. And, when I think of regional powers, I refer to the latitude to which local communities could afford to go in the administrative process, in political and financial issues concerning the quality of life of all citizens of a region, normally defined by human and natural factors.
The Address-Mr. Deans

Mr. Speaker, in view of the trends which I have listed, I would support any proposal to renew our political equilibrium which would take into account the true aspirations of the citizens. The political history of Quebec in this regard and the disequilibrium it is now causing in the Canadian structure do not in my view provide the whole context of the problem. The separation of Quebec would not solve anything, but could well delay the granting of the regional powers which are so important for our communities, and my region is certainly not the least concerned in this matter. The political separation of Quebec from the Canadian nation would bring about an undeniable flow of centralization towards Quebec City at the expense of the regions, and the process has already begun with Act 57 on municipal reform, Mr. Speaker. This eventuality can be verified by the consequences of jurisdictional reorganizations which a sovereign Quebec would have to face.
The mood and the temper in the Canadian government as well as in that of Quebec, temper which has been obvious for several years already, would threaten to abort and minimize, if not contradict, reality. The same phenomenon in other parts of Canada, if they too decided to copy the behaviour of present day Quebec leaders, would provoke a comparable imbalance. Still, Mr. Speaker, those other areas express their regional needs energetically without rejecting the federal formula for political organization. Of course, some will say that Quebec is a different province. I recognize that. But how is it different? In that we are Francophones, but if we have survived to this day, it may be that some protection spared us from becoming the fourth underdeveloped state of northern United States.
Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, proud to be a Quebecker and proud to be a Canadian, I want to repeat to this House what I said throughout my election campaign: I consider myself every bit as much of a Quebecker as any woman who is a member of the PQ in the province of Quebec. 1 am Quebecker and, as 1 have already said, I am proud to be a Quebecker, and I want to remain a Quebecker in a united Canada.
[English |


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be here. I have looked forward to this day for some time, as you can appreciate, having watched the workings of the federal Parliament for a long number of years.
1 first want to congratulate Madam Speaker on the assumption of her new role, and to say that if the last two or three days are any indication of the way in which she will handle the business of the House, she is to be commended for the way she has picked up and assumed that role.
I also want to congratulate all members who are either returned or have been elected for the first time. 1 know as a first-time member how exciting it is to get elected to Parliament, and how important the role is that we all have to play. I want to say to the constitutents who trooped out to the polls on election day and voted in vast numbers to send me here that I hope I will provide them whith the kind of satisfaction and

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Deans
leadership they anticipated and that, in the final analysis, they will find what I have done here on their behalf will be to their liking and they might even consider sending me back, which is unusual for the constituency that I represent.
1 do not intend to dwell at great length on the constituency, although I want to point out a couple of things that are important in terms of what my constituents feel about both government and Parliament. To begin with, I sent out a little questionnaire not long after the election. 1 asked them to explain to me what they felt were the important matters that should be dealt with by this government and what they expected of me in terms of what I should be saying.
It came through loud and clear that the primary concern of the majority of people, all of whom are very hardworking and have spent a great deal of time trying to build their place in the Hamilton community, is the impact of interest rates, not only in terms of mortgages, although that would be one of the primary concerns, but also in terms of the purchasing power that they are losing day by day to the ever-increasing mortgage interest rate and the ever-increasing consumer rate that they are going to have to pay and, indeed, are now paying.
They are also expressing a concern about the impact of that on jobs as they are unable to find the necessary consumer dollars to buy the goods that they normally would purchase. They know, as I know, as any member here knows, that the impact of that on the people who are working and producing those consumer products that would normally be purchased, is a very great impact indeed. Over the course of the next short while, because of the reduction in purchasing power that the higher and higher interest rates are bringing about, there will undoubtedly be a reduction in the manufacturing sector. That reduction will mean fewer people working. As one person said to me, as fewer people work, those of us who can find jobs will be required to pay even more in order to maintain the structures that we have set up.
It seems to me, and to a lot of people like me in this country, that it is vital that this Parliament address itself immediately to the problem of high interest rates. The cost of purchasing in terms of what must be paid in interest alone has gone all out of proportion. I expect to hear better from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) than his statements which, frankly, made no sense in the last two days when he spoke about the small number of people who may be assisted by a mortgage interest program. He spoke about the others who will simply have to bear the burden and find a way to pay it. I know my constituents do not agree with that, and 1 want to make it clear to the Minister of Finance on their behalf that I do not agree with it either.
The high cost of living, which is a subject rarely addressed, exacts its toll on pensioners, on low and middle income families attempting to find their own way. It is time Parliament set aside a block of time to deal with the components which make up the ever-increasing cost of living. It is time members set aside time to speak to each other and to the government about
what specific actions might reasonably be taken to control the ever increasing cost of living because, unless we do, we shall find that the industrial base of the country is being undermined-less and less of the money people earn will be available for the purchase of the things we produce across the country, and if we cannot buy what we produce because we have to tie up so much of the money which is available simply to provide the essentials, then obviously the effect will once again be a reduction in manufacturing and employment.
We must ever be cautious that we do not allow the cost of the essential part of life-housing, food, medical care, education-to reach such outrageous proportions in terms of capacity to earn that people having nothing left to spend on other and more enjoyable but, nevertheless, in our society from an economic point of view, equally important areas in which money ought to be spent.
I want to say a brief word about the problems in Quebec. I do not understand them well, I must confess, and I say to my colleagues from Quebec, not being from Quebec, that it is difficult to be truly understanding of what is happening in that province. I would have liked, tonight, to say a word or two in French, but I say to you, quite truthfully, Mr. Speaker, that had I done that I would not have understood it and, perhaps, neither would you. But I have enrolled in a French class and some day before this Parliament is over 1 swear I will stand here and do it, believe me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Nevertheless, let me tell hon. members something that I do understand, or at least, I think I do. I have watched Parliament work for many years, as you know, and I do not understand why it is that the people of Quebec feel their grievances have not been adequately presented to Parliament. I do not understand this, given that the proportion of the total membership of the House of Commons which is assigned to the province of Quebec is significant, and I do not understand it in terms of the fact that the Liberal party from which most of the Quebec members come has formed the government for a significant period of time and that, during this period, the members who represent Quebec have surely made representations to the government, to their colleagues in the cabinet, about the problems of the province, and surely they have been listened to. Now, either the cabinet has not paid attention to its own members or the members have not made the arguments well. I am not going to judge which is the case. But there is something terribly wrong when a province feels so alienated, giving the strong representation that it has.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is important the people of Quebec should understand that the rest of us in Canada would very much like to find a resolution to the constitutional problems which seem to bedevil the relationship not only between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada but also between other parts of Canada and the federal system. I think it is fair to say there is no member in this House who is not prepared to devote whatever time is necessary to find solutions to these constitutional problems, to hammer out the
April 17, 1980

sharing arrangements which must be made, and to take part in the effort which must be undertaken to create in Canada a society to which everyone feels they belong. I believe this can happen. I believe it can happen because I know the federal system has worked. I think my leader put it very well when he suggested that even within the federal system which Mr. Levesque dislikes, the province of Quebec has done remarkably well.
The government of Quebec and the Government of Canada have been able to provide for the people of Quebec in proportion to what they have been able to provide for the people of the rest of Canada and they made every effort, I hope, to accommodate the legitimate requests put forward by representatives from Quebec to the cabinet.
I want this evening to speak about another and, I believe, equally important matter, but before I do so let me say that in Canada there are major problems. People are very concerned about government. I do not think they are concerned because government is doing too much; 1 think they are concerned because they do not know what government is doing. They wonder, as I wonder, how it can be that a country so rich can have so many problems. They wonder how can it be that a country with such energy potential not only in crude oil but in all forms of energy can be faced with an energy crisis? How can it be that a country with natural resources in abundance, natural resources which have been used by every other country in the world to build their economies, has not used its resources to develop the manufacturing sector and the secondary sector which are so obviously necessary here, and which have to be in place when, as is inevitable, the resources become depleted or are no longer required in the manufacturing sector? How can it be that a country with human resources like our own, an educational system second to none, should be faced with these massive and, for some, maybe, even insurmountable problems?
It is because of mismanagement on the part of the government. It is because government has not, first of all, set out, on behalf of Canadians, goals which are attainable using the resources both human and natural which are available to us to build society and an infrastructure for that society which would sustain it through these difficult times. It is because governments have tended to use a band-aid approach, have tended like brush fire fighters, to meet the tiny though important problems as they rise without looking at the much larger problems of planning the economy so that it will be able to withstand the infiltration and pressures which are the inevitable result of our being a branch plant of a much larger economy.
This is what we are seeing in the auto industry and it is about the auto industry that I want to speak shortly, because the auto industry is crucial not only to Ontario but to all of Canada. Within the auto industry there lies the opportunity to expand the manufacturing sector; within the auto industry lies the opportunity to source products all across the country; within the auto industry lies the opportunity to utilize better the natural resources of the province.
The Address-Mr. Deans
When we come back at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I should like to spend 15 minutes talking about just that subject. With your permission I will now call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, when we rose for supper at six o'clock, I mentioned that I intended to spend some time speaking about the conditions which currently exist within the auto industry, and I want to do that now.
The House will recall that on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week I raised with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) the problems which seem to be revolving around the contract which was signed between the federal government and the Ford Motor Company in the year 1978. That contract afforded to Ford the opportunity to gain access to some $68 million in return for the building of a plant in Windsor. I asked the minister if he would produce for the House the relevant sections of the contract which afforded us the opportunity to insist that the Ford Motor Company should continue and maintain the levels of employment that it currently had in 1978 and beyond, during the time that this new plant was being built. Today the minister tabled the documents in the House, and it is no wonder we are being ripped off.
I read both the contract and the letter of agreement over the signature, in both cases, of the then minister, Mr. Horner- long departed, thank heavens! In any event, the contracts do not provide any protection for the workers in the province of Ontario, and it is no wonder that the minister did not want us to see the contracts. In fact, not only is there no provision for the workers in the province of Ontario, but also nowhere in the contract does it say that the minister could not have told us that. It does say, of course, that, and I quote:
Subject to the federal laws of Canada, the minister will maintain normal commercial security and privacy in respect to the project and will not disclose any information relating to the scope and cost of work encompassed by the project to any person or government outside Canadian federal and provincial government departments, agencies and Crown corporations without the. .. written consent of the company.
One does not have to be a corporate lawyer in order to understand that that did not preclude the minister from telling us that there was no provision for the protection of the workers in the plants of the Ford Motor Company.
To draw in that he had to wait for approval from Ford was a red herring. Of course, what the minister did not bring to our attention was the fact that not only is there no protection for

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Deans
the workers in Ontario and Canada but also, in fact, when it was signed the contract said the following:
It is understood and agreed that nothing contained in this paragraph-
This is the paragraph dealing with protection.
-shall in any way ... limit... any right-
Of the company.
-to arrange its business affairs in any manner it shall see fit.
That is exactly what has been done. The company has arranged its business affairs in the province of Ontario in the manner it has seen fit, and the end result of what the company saw fit is that at this point in time, together with its other companion companies, we see 20,000 employees, generally employed in the auto industry or related industries, out of work.
These employees are not all in Windsor. One might have expected that the minister would understand the problem, given that he comes from Windsor, given that he claims to be championing the workers of Windsor, given that he says that it is nice to hear the NDP finally speaking about the problems of auto workers and given that the minister claims to be expert in the matter of the auto industry, the trade pact and related matters. It is strange to me that he does not understand the terms of this contract.
What was given away? Not only the $40 million federal dollars but also the additional $28 million given by the province of Ontario.
Let me tell the Elouse what is happening across this province, because I think it is important to know. Not only is unemployment happening in Windsor, where there are major lay-offs. We all know of the Budd Manufacturing Company which has laid off upwards of 1,900 people in Windsor. In Brampton, American Motors has laid off some 700 people. In Brampton, Gabriel Company has laid off 20 more people. In Brampton, the Canadian Ferrow Company has laid off another 108 people. In Stratford, Sealed Power has laid off 180 people.
In Ottawa, Beach Foundry just recently announced the lay-off of 240 people. In Windsor, Chrysler laid off an entire shift in April of 1980, 1,200 people, and Chrysler intends this summer to lay off yet another 2,100 people. In Windsor, Ford in its casting operation laid off 840 people. In Oakville, Ford laid off an entire shift of 1,400.
When we take a look around the province even further, we find that in subsidiary operations in a place like Otter Lake, which is near Parry Sound, the Rockwell Corporation, well known to most, has just announced that it is likely to shpt down permanently. It used to employ 200. One hundred have already been laid off, and the only other major industry in the area, CIL, has indicated that it too may well be comtemplat-ing closing. Of course, when they are closing the operation in Otter Lake, they are maintaining their operation in Mississippi. That is what we would expect, of course, from a corporation which does business in the atmosphere created by a
government like the one we have had for the last far too many years.
When we look in summary at what has happened in the auto industry, for heaven's sake let us not get the impression that the auto industry can sit in splendid isolation and be viewed as only one industry, because there is nowhere in this country that is not affected in one way or another and will not be affected in one way or another by the massive lay-offs which are taking place in this major industry. As I said the other day, two out of every ten people working in the province of Ontario work in the auto industry or in a related industry. We have 20,000 unemployed now, 10,000 of them in Windsor. Do hon. members know that 35 per cent of all Ford workers there are laid off and 40 per cent of all Chrysler workers there are laid off?
When we look around the country, or this part of the country, we see that in Kitchener, St. Catharines and Ajax between 40 per cent and 80 per cent of all the people who were employed in the auto industry are now laid off either permanently or temporarily. The minister cannot claim that this is new and that all of a sudden this was dumped into his lap- poor soul!-because this has been clearly and evidently coming for a long period of time.
I will not burden or bore the House with all of the detail, but I can say that there was news story after news story through last year, with headlines such as "Parts firms stung by slowdown". More than 1,000 were laid off. "1,175 face lay-off after Ford move". "Auto lay-offs kill Windsor's short-lived boom". It goes on. "Auto parts industry fears major lay-offs". Then it points out the places where those lay-offs will take place.
These were all stories from last year, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the ministry and the ministers, whoever they may have been, surely must have been able to see the handwriting on the wall. But what do we get from the minister? Well, he is going to have some meetings. I want to tell the House that those meetings are not nearly good enough for the unemployed workers in this country, in this province, and in Windsor in particular. Another series of meetings between the minister and some inconsequential people will not resolve the problems of the auto industry.
I do not know if the House realizes just how many people are involved in this and what happens to their families. I do not think the minister understands-and he should understand-that the entire infrastructure in social services in place in his own community is in jeopardy. Of course the reason is evident. It is because most of the agencies which provide the social services require donations through United Appeal or through governments, and governments are cutting back. Of course the United Appeal cannot raise the money it could raise before because there are fewer people working to contribute. So, at the very time when they need the money, at the very time when the need is greatest, when more people stand in line looking for help-most for the first time-they cannot get the help because the agencies do not have the money to provide it
April 17, 1980

and the government does not produce any of the funds necessary to make up the shortfall.
It will not end here. Today I was speaking to one of the major tire manufacturers in Canada. I was told by one of its senior officials that we can expect not only the Whitby layoffs, the closure announced less than a week ago, with a dramatic impact on the town, but we can anticipate that there will be lay-offs all across the country where tire manufacturers are located. For example, we can expect that there will be lay-offs in Joliette. Of course there will be lay-offs in Hamilton, which I represent. What does the government do? Here is a tire industry faced with the problems the auto industry is facing, and the government turns around and gives something like $40 million to Michelin in Nova Scotia to go ahead and build a new plant. What possible use can that be when there is an idle capacity all across the industry, when the industry is presently laying off? Why would they give $40 million or $50 million to build a plant where no plant is needed? Why would they further jeopardize the work and the livelihood of the people presently involved in the industry by handing out money at a time when money can do nothing but harm?
It has not been announced yet, but we will see, as we will in all other related industries, major cutbacks in the rubber industry. Those major cutbacks will touch every one of us here in one way or another. Whether the House believes it or not, the auto industry is crucial to the well-being of this country. The minister should be prepared to establish once and for all the role the auto industry in Canada can and will play, a role which must be established in one way or another, albeit with agreements, separate and apart nevertheless from the United States industry. We cannot afford to have an industry that in its own right could well be profitable, if given an opportunity, dragged down by management which really does not much care about the Canadian component or about the families of the people in Windsor, Oakville, St. Catharines, Kitchener, Parry Sound, Hamilton or any other place across this country, and makes its decisions in isolation from what is in the best interests economically and socially for Canada.
How can we possibly develop an industrial strategy which does not encompass the auto industry? How can we possibly look forward to the creation of new jobs? I am not only referring to producing jobs for the people who are presently looking for work, but how can we look forward to the creation of new jobs, unless we are prepared to sit down with that industry and insist that it establishes reasonable levels of manufacturing based on Canadian sales, and stop being simply assemblers of automobiles and start being manufacturers of component parts in every single community across this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: We must start now to attach the kinds of conditions to government subsidies that will give us some opportunity to require from them a level of performance which is commensurate with what we anticipate we need. We never do it. This government is historically tied much too closely to
The Address-Mr. Tousignant
the corporate boardrooms, and that is the problem. They do not understand. They cannot treat public money differently than they would treat private money if asked to invest. They must require from the people to whom they give the money the same kinds of guarantees in terms of performance that they would if they were giving them their own money, because it is their own money. It is about time this government understood it. Over the course of the next two or three years, I look forward to seeing this government bringing forward whatever it is-I see my colleague on the other side holding his hand up indicating four years.


Mr. Collenette:: Five.


Ian Deans: Be that as it may. In fact, I expect to be here longer. Perhaps he does not. In any event, over the course of the next few years I expect to see the government unveil its strategy for industrial development. But in the meantime, for heaven's sake, take the steps to protect those workers, take the steps to exact from that corporation which has taken its toll on Canada the kinds of guarantees which will assure that we will have not only short-term but long-term benefits that will last for this generation and for many other generations to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to join the previous speakers to extend my sincere wishes to our new and distinguished Speaker and to all the hon. members in this new Parliament. I take the opportunity to thank my constituents in Temiscamingue for the confidence they put in me.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Temiscamingue I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons is a good reflection of Canada, both through the richness and the diversity of its human potential and its vast natural resources. As far as human resources are concerned, this distinguished audience will remember for a long time my famous predecessor, Mr. Real Caouette, who was a great Canadian and a great advocate of federalism. May I also bring to the attention of my colleagues that the man who is almost always on duty here, in the House, under our eyes, was born and grew up in my parish; I refer to the Deputy Clerk on duty, my good friend from my childhood and college days, Mr. Pelletier. I want to pay a tribute to him for the dignity he shows in assuming his great responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, nature in our area has been kind by blessing us with abundant resources; we have huge forests, our lakes and rivers are breathtaking, our sub-soil is full of minerals, but then we must have the tools that are essential to a rational and necessary development. Agriculture could make good progress given the appropriate incentives.
I am pleased to find in the Speech from the Throne various elements meeting exactly certain priorities I had set forth

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Tousignant
during the last election campaign and which I believed essential to the development of my area and the better-being of my fellow citizens. With respect to the quality of life, here are the intentions of the government: We will be asked to give urgent consideration to legislation raising the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security pension by $35 a month per household by July 1 of this year. This measure will primarily benefit single pensioners, the vast majority of whom are women. Beyond providing immediate relief for elderly people with low incomes, the government intends to convene a national pension conference in the fall of 1980. Work must begin immediately to design better methods of providing flexible, portable, and secure pensions both in the private and public sectors. To start this process, the government will soon release a major study on the Canadian pension system.
One of the essential objectives of this government is to put more people such as young people, women, natives and the handicapped to work. To meet the needs of these groups, the government will expand its employment program while using its resources more efficiently. Knowing the high rate of unemployment prevailing now in my area, those measures will certainly be welcomed by my fellow citizens. The role of women in my riding is a dominant and a most positive element in the social, cultural and economic areas, and one of my dearest wishes is that the Parliament of Canada will lift the discriminatory barriers against women in the market place, and I also welcome its intention to set the example in the federal public service.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am deeply pleased to see that the government is committed to giving members of Parliament an important role in the elaboration of job-creation projects and closer co-operation with voluntary and local organizations in the implementation of a community services program which indeed I had advocated in my election campaign. It would be an illusion to expect reasonable economic development in my constituency and the area without a substantial injection of incentives and financial assistance to small and medium-sized businesses.
Let me point out that my constituency has been hardly favoured during these last three decades, perhaps because none of the elected representatives, as far back as 1957, belonged to the government, which caused apathy and disinterest in our people. Anyway, times have changed and to make up for that we will have to double up. Citizens in my constituency are getting increasingly involved at the various levels of economic development, and I will make it a point to change the face of my constituency during my term of office.
In the circumstances, I feel that these aspirations are quite legitimate. I intend to be firm and expect help from the government. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I see in various parts of the throne speech the opportunity for me to fulfil the commit-[DOT] ments I made in my constituency of Temiscamingue. First, the government promises to promote a new policy of national
economic development, provide jobs, stimulate growth, use regional forces and increase the level of Canadian ownership and control of the economy, and second, to consolidate the federal institutions while making them more sensitive to provincial and regional aspirations. What about that famous federal building which was to be built in Rouyn-Noranda and which made headlines during so many election campaigns? It is urgently needed. There is no reason any more to delay the project, and when I say no reason I hope I will be understood. Third, to guarantee Canadians energy supplies at a price that is fair to all, and, in order to improve the ability of Canadian industry to compete abroad in order to create jobs at home, our government intends to establish a national trading company. It also intends to make assistance programs more accessible to small business, to simplify application procedures, and to better co-ordinate programs. Further, in order to conserve energy, an objective I fully support, it is becoming imperative to improve the current home insulation program through initiatives aimed at promoting higher standards.
Mr. Speaker, all my constituents and particularly those living in the south of my riding will be very happy to learn that this government intends to propose a new legislation on oil and natural gas in Canada. It will give Petro-Canada and other Canadian corporations new preferential rights on federal lands and will establish stricter requirements for the exploration and development of the enormous potential of the isolated areas. At the same time 1 think it would be advisable for the government to consider seriously the possibility of giving a flat rate for gas and heating oil to Canadians of every region. Why should remote regions like ours with harsh climatic conditions pay 10 cents more per gallon? Would a fair distribution of natural resources not be in the true spirit of federalism? This government intends to create an alternative energy corporation responsible for promoting the expansion of new renewable energy sources that might replace oil.
Mr. Speaker, let me mention that serious projects aimed at recovering energy from wood residues are presently being developed in my riding and are the subject of a study filed with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It is one more evidence of our determination to develop our economic potential. The natural resources of Canada will be our tool to implement a vigorous industrial policy.
If it is true that agriculture and food will play an ever-increasing role in the Canadian economy in the 80s, we in Temiscamingue hope that our cattle, sheep and goat raisers will be able to make that essential sector thrive and find young people to carry on. To this effect, I wish to mention to my honourable colleagues that tax concessions are essential. To be profitable, if we except capital funds, a business must have an operating fund or a bank loan of $100,000 or more every year. The present interest rates considerably reduce profits. That era of prosperity is open to us. We are now in a position to entertain such hopes.


April 17, 1980

The genius of man transforms the wool of the sheep into clothes fit for a king. I know that my fellow citizens are capable of extraordinary things. However, Mr. Speaker, since there are no thornless roses, we have to recognize that an active minority-and I do say an active minority-is trying to destroy everything, to grab some pieces of furniture and set fire to the house. 1 am talking about the phony and ridiculous exercise initiated in Quebec by this same government, that is the referendum.
We are now witnessing in Canada and Quebec the greatest fraud that our country has seen since its discovery. Let me explain: Since it had not succeeded in being elected on two or three occasions by stating categorically that it was for independence, the Parti Quebecois decided in the last election to hide its true face and disguise itself by telling Quebeckers it would be a good government and promising to hold a referendum during its mandate. So far so good. No one has any objection to having a good government and no one has any objection to this government holding a referendum. In fact, this is about the equivalent of holding an election. However, immediately after the Parti Quebecois is elected, it becomes anxious to achieve its objective.
Instead of keeping itself busy with the affairs of the state on a full-time basis, they hurry to get everyone on their side. All ministers and members of the National Assembly spend most of their time in small meetings or in trying to get an individual or the mayor of a municipality to say yes in exchange for a job or a grant. Many resist, but some get taken in this game.


An hon. Member:: It is coercion.


Henri Tousignant: My colleague is right in saying that it is coercion. What is even worse and quite unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, is that these people are trying to impose a system which goes against the will of the majority of Quebec citizens, and this at our expense. We are forced to use our own money so that a government can use all the means at its disposal to force on us a drastic change in our political institutions. Mr. Speaker, this is unadulterated political piracy.
Of course, the scenario is a masterpiece and is inspired by the intelligentsia of certain foreign powers. The proposal of the Parti Quebecois, which is a socialist government-and we all know that socialism is a forerunner of communism-the proposal of this government is nothing more than a poisoned cake with an icing of overheated nationalism served on a silver platter. In fact, an abusive and even psychotic use is made of nationalism. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this type of nationalism is a retrograde step which should be denounced. At this time, while taking care to protect our interests, we must show understanding, openness of mind and more farsightedness if we want another reality and other results than a sterile contemplation engendered by an exaggerated nationalism. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the scenario is a masterpiece.
As the member of the National Assembly, Mr. Samson, used to say this is the trick of the hook hidden in the meatball.
The Address-Mr. Tousignant
You will remember that when we were young and we wished to get rid of a stray dog, we used to hide a hook in a meatball and the trick never failed. You could also compare it to the bear trap. We are ingenuously asked to put a foot in it and are being told that it will be possible for us to get out unharmed.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, all this exercise in charm and superficial seduction on the part of the Quebec government reminds me of the gallant gentleman who wants to seduce the belle. Will he directly tell her about his intentions? Like the PQ he will rather skilfully divert the conversation and offer her, obviously, a candlelight dinner. This is what the Quebec government is offering us, Mr. Speaker, a candlelight dinner. We agree. There is nothing wrong with having a candlelight dinner together; however, by accepting, the irreversible process has just been started. The PQ is in no hurry, and neither is the gallant gentleman. It does not matter if it takes one dinner, two dinners, three dinners. The effect is slow but sure. The conversation is about natural resources, the lady's beautiful eyes, her potential and guaranteed bliss. The candle keeps on burning, and the rest is known, the wine becomes an all-risk insurance. I light your cigarette, we talk about grants. The point of no return is reached, all there is to do then is wait for the consequences.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the consequences of a disguised proposition. We are asked for a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association, how about that! Mr. Levesque himself has said that sovereignty-association is nothing but independence. To be sovereign, as someone said this afternoon in the House, is to be able to make one's own laws, collect one's own taxes, take charge of one's external affairs. It is plainly independence, but to reassure us it was carefully coupled with association, in the full knowledge that Quebeckers who are used to the benefits of the present system will be inclined to believe that it will continue to exist indefinitely after their rejection of Canada. Let us not have any illusions, an association is not possible and the privileges also will disappear.
Mr. Speaker, we are told about a common currency to hoodwink us precisely so that we will not refer to it since we know quite well that this could frighten investors and small savers. Let us not forget that when money is involved, it is touching, but they resort to window-dressing. Now I say that a common currency is impossible. Why? I will give a few quite simple examples. We all know and the fact has been noted quite often that at present Quebec is importing 550,000 barrels of oil daily, seven days a week, 365 days a year, thus creating a deficit of $4 billion last year which was made up by the federal government.
We can add to that deficit another $400 million for natural gas. Working out a quick calculation, supposing that till 1990 we succeed in maintaining our consumption at 550,000 barrels a day-it could reach 800,000 barrels, but the minister, Mr. Joron, tells us that he will restrict consumption to 500,000 barrels-let us be conservative and say that in 1990 we will still use 550,000 barrels of oil daily in Quebec.

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Tousignant
Let us make a simple projection using a 9 per cent annual increase in the price of oil. This year the price has gone up by 40 per cent. But if we figure it on the basis of a 9 per cent increase each year, we find out that an independent Quebec will pay something like $90 for a barrel of oil in 1990 and these are conservative figures. Such a price represents an annual deficit of $16 billion which the province of Quebec will have to face and we are only talking about oil. EIow could we make it? A moment ago I said the issue of common currency was impossible. How could we set a value for our dollar against the dollar in the rest of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I would like nothing more than to have these modern time theoreticians explain to me the miracle equation by which they will make things work out. They could not succeed even if they kept the 50 per cent of our taxes they are so fond of talking about. They try to lure the people of Quebec by telling them they would have only one income tax return to fill out. Imagine, only one income tax return! They need to use such trifles to sell their idea just as if it were an ordinary consumer good. I should like somebody to explain to me how the province will manage financially when time comes for it to assume fully the costs of road construction for which the government now pays 60 per cent, not to mention shared-cost health services, medicare, family allowances, old age security pensions, unemployment insurance benefits, welfare programs for Indians and veterans, housing subsidies, railroads, postal services, national harbours, national defence, embassies in almost all countries of the world, international organizations such as NATO and the United Nations to which an independent country must belong of necessity, and I mentioned only half of them.
There are people who go so far as to say that they have not seen any embassy in Abitibi. That is what PQ supporters say: We did not find any embassy in Abitibi. Let me say that in 1978 the federal government spent directly in Abitibi-Temis-camingue $188 million. This does not include of course outlays embassies, national defence and external affairs. Yet, these same unscrupulous people made no bones about quoting all sorts of extravagant figures during the televised debate on the question in the National Assembly, but they monopolized and extorted more than two-thirds of the time allotted for that debate. What a fine example of democracy, Mr. Speaker. What balance, what a deep and developed sense of justice-guillotine is awaiting us. What an insult to intelligence to put up figures, any figures provided they are unfavourable to the federalist cause.
Mr. Speaker, they had the nerve to insinuate that in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area the expenses by the federal government represented only 8.6 per cent-and they quote that 0.6 fraction because of course those people like accurate figures-of total government expenditures. Imagine! Right on national or Quebec television, they mentioned that figure of 8.6 per cent of expenditures, when we know, and that can be substantiated, that the federal government spent $188 million in our area. If that represents 8.6 per cent of government
expenditures in my area, I would like very much to know how many billions the Quebec government did spend there. For all those reasons, I am firmly convinced that it will not be possible for a half-bankrupt state to maintain parity of the dollar with the other provinces which will refuse to maintain or support an ailing dollar. Besides, is it necessary to add that several factors have a direct effect on the value of the dollar? Where are the figures? Have we been shown a balance sheet pro formal No, all we have to work on are surmises and feelings. On another subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that if Quebec separates, it will not only lose nine-tenths of other Canadian provinces but above all it will lose the Northwest Territories and the Yukon which-as is known-are extremely rich and upon which Canadians depend more and more for their future.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I venture to question seriously the loyalty and real intentions of those who dare contemptuously criticize a country as exceptional as Canada, a country that protects its citizens through its legislation and its bill of rights. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, just as an example and as a matter for reflection to quote some excerpts from the bill of rights that may bring some independentists to their senses.
Here are our country's commitments to its citizens:
The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property: the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of assembly and association; and freedom of the press.
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge of infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person; impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; deprive a person who has been arrested or detained of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention, of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful; authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel,-
Does the Parti Quebecois guarantee us those things?
protection against self-incrimination or other constitutional safeguards; deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations; deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause;
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with these words spoken by Mr. Diefenbaker:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to express myself without fear, free to serve God as 1 see fit, free to rise against what 1 consider unjust, free to choose the leaders of my country. 1 pledge to safeguard for myself and for humanity this legacy of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, these are our country's commitments to its citizens, and in return, the commitments of all good citizens to their country. What more could we expect? Once again, I say that I liken whoever would want to destroy such a wonderful country as ours to an offspring who would dare raise his hand against his father.
April 17, 1980


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish to congratulate Madam Speaker on her election. I am sure that she will carry out with distinction the duties of the post that you share tonight, and add that grace which is so much a part of her person. Acting as the first woman Speaker of the House of Commons in Canada is but a continuation of her past accomplishments in her many fields of interest in Canada and on the international scene.
I am proud to be here as the representative of Edmonton South which is part of a growing city full of promise for the future. This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the province of Alberta, and 1 hope many Canadians will have the opportunity to visit our province as well as the city of Edmonton and experience for themselves the spirit of growth and adventure that characterizes our community.
I thank my electors for having shown confidence in me for the fourth time, and I hope that I will be able to merit the continuation of that confidence.
Canada is engulfed in a crisis of staggering proportions. Not in our lifetime have the combined economic, energy and political problems of Canada been greater than at this moment. The country is reeling under unprecedented interest rates, intolerable government, debt and ceaseless inflation. Polls indicate that the separatist voices could win the Quebec referendum, which would be the bitterest blow to confederation in our 113 years.
A new government, elected with virtually no support west of Winnipeg, has already twice given the back of its hand to western Canada on the essential questions of energy and transportation. Is it any wonder that the air is filled with anger, and anger that 1 personally experienced at a town hall meeting I called for my constituents in Edmonton South after the election? People seek order and they are given chaos. They want stability and they are given drift. They want leadership and they are given politics. It is a moment for all of us who want a united Canada with economic strength and renewed federalism, to stand up. If we who want to build on the legacy that we have received do not speak out to protect Canada, the Canada that we love, then the forces of those who would separate and destroy the country will surely grow.
1 appeal to members on all sides of the House. 1 say let us together repair the terrible divisions in this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: I say let us through this institution provide the economic, social and political leadership Canadians so desperately seek today. Let us unite-at least in this analysis-that a Yes vote in the referendum will tear Canada apart irreparably, for western Canada will never tolerate a government rejected by westerners at the polls and which, in turn, is rejected by the very province that the government depends upon for electoral support.
The Address-Mr. Roche
We must abandon sophisticated interpretations of the referendum question. I know that it is deviously worded, but, outside Quebec, Yes will mean that Quebec wants out, and when that happens Canada will explode.
As an Albertan my appeal to the people of Quebec is to vote No in the referendum. A No vote is not a vote for the status quo, for the western provinces also want a renewed federalism, one which would reflect the new position of the west in confederation, a renewed confederation, and which would also provide Quebec with an acceptable alternative to separation.
My work has taken me into every corner of the world. 1 know how blessed our land is with space, resources, technology, industry, and an environment that promotes a quality of life second to none in the world. We cannot fail to be proud of our country. It is all the more reason to be angry over the problems that beset us, that keep us bogged down, constantly turned inward when we should be raising our heads looking out into the world that needs the leadership and production that Canada can offer.
The problems of Canada are not insoluble, but they require more political honesty, more belt-tightening, and a greater sense of justice than they now receive. Like Quebec the west is frustrated by the current federal system which has failed to respond adequately to the changing conditions within Canada today. Western frustration is rooted more in economics than in culture as Albertans see the money that they provide through equalization payments, income taxes, oil and gas revenues going to a government which is more attentive to the large electorally strong consumer centre of Canada than to the sparsely populated regional resource regions.
The separatist movement which has grown out of the seeds of discontent is not yet strong in western Canada, but the potential is there if the federal government is not responsive to western concerns that have been elaborated for many years by western members that I see surrounding me tonight in the House.
A recent poll taken by people at the Edmonton Journal and The Calgary Herald shows that 68 per cent of Albertans feel that their interests are not being adequately represented in Ottawa. What does that tell us? It tells us that the west is waiting for clear signs of this government's commitment. So far the signs have not been hopeful. I listened carefully two days ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his speech. I have to say in all honesty that I felt the Prime Minister again dismissed the problems of regional fair treatment too casually. The decision by the federal government to use the emergency provisions of the oil sands pricing agreement to put a ceiling on the price of synthetic crude oil has disrupted the industry and cast doubts upon the intentions of the federal government in the oil-pricing negotiations with Alberta. The Alberta government has already reacted strongly against the move, and the future of the two oil sands plants is in jeopardy because of the industry's lack of confidence in federal government agreements.

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Roche
I plead with members on the other side of the House to think about these problems for they are every bit as much at the heart of the question of unity in our country as is the Quebec referendum. The refusal by the federal government to commit itself to the Conservative government's agreement to provide $30 million for infrastructure costs at the proposed Prince Rupert grain terminal has also jeopardized western reactions to this government. It has certainly jeopardized the future of grain transportation in our country.
There have been other moves by the government seen as discriminatory in the west. For example, the reduction in private utilities federal income tax rebates to the provinces affects Alberta more than any other province and has been felt directly by many Albertans through increased utility costs. It is a needless thing for the government to do.
The sincerity of the government's commitment to the west can be tested in several ways. An energy pricing agreement should be concluded with Alberta that provides no less benefits than would have been received as a result of negotiations with the Clark government. The producing provinces must be compensated fairly for their rapidly depleting resources. That is the essence of the Alberta position today. We heard it conveyed by Premier Lougheed to the Canadian Press dinner last night in Toronto. I want to tell my colleagues in the House that the people of Alberta are 100 per cent behind Lougheed as he defends the Alberta position nationally.
Transportation policies are needed for both goods and people, policies that recognize the essential role played by transportation in the continued development of the west. Grievances persist in the area over the adverse effect of the Crowsnest Pass rates on producers of finished goods in the west, over the irrationality of the grain transportation system, over the destruction of railway communities caused by rail line abandonment. The time for action is now if serious economic repercussions in the west are to be avoided.
Westerners also want industrial development policies which will provide more incentive to manufacturers to locate in the west. Agriculture and livestock policies should ensure a more equitable and stabilized return for western farmers. These are some of the things that are fundamental to our position as we come into the House to start a new Parliament.
We give a commitment to renewed federalism. We want to see the government move forward in those concrete steps that show a sincere concern for the interests of western Canada. Our constitution has proven remarkably adaptable in the years of our confederation, but I think we are pretty well all agreed that it needs to be changed. It is no longer appropriate for today's reality. That is the essence of the Quebec position.
Renewed federalism through constitutional amendment should reflect the desire of the regions to respond effectively to the needs of their people while maintaining a united Canada under a strong central government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Any proposals for change to the federal system will have to take into account the views of the west. The Alberta government has already outlined its proposals in its paper called "Harmony and Diversity" which is designed to encourage national unity as well as effective operation of the federal system. The paper suggests that the division of powers be modified to strengthen provincial ownership and control of natural resources, provide provincial access to direct and indirect taxes, and establish concurrent jurisdiction in the fields of communication, fisheries, transportation and culture. The federal ability to act in provincial jurisdictions would be restricted to well-defined limits. The principle of equalization would be entrenched in the constitution and French and English recognized as Canada's official languages.
The Quebec Liberal party's document "A New Canadian Federation", the Ryan beige paper, offers a rational and comprehensive analysis of our current dilemma. That paper is worthy of support. I personally have some disagreement with some aspects of the Ryan paper, but it is at least dedicated to the fundamental principles of equality of the two founding peoples and respect for regional and cultural diversity principles that Canadians share today.
There are differences in the various proposals and papers put forward, whether they are talking about the Canada West foundation, the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, the city of Edmonton, the Pepin-Robarts report that we discussed in the Parliament before last; all of these share the same basic objectives of a strong and united Canada where we are willing to negotiate compromises. This willingness to negotiate will help to ensure that the central government is not weakened to the point of ineffectiveness in the face of economic and social problems that require a strong national response.
A renewed federalism will enable all regions of Canada to develop to their fullest potential and take advantage of the opportunities that this country has to offer, opportunities that we could not spend enough time exploring and exposing in this House for all Canadians who are reading and seeing us here, for them to appreciate as much as we who have the opportunity of travelling regularly across this country.
We need sound economic and energy policies. That is part of our struggle for national unity. We should recall the sentence given in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his contribution to this debate two days ago when he said:
-the importance of the referendum is no excuse for delaying action on economic policy, no excuse for delaying action on energy policy and no excuse for avoiding our international obligations. Indeed, delay in dealing with those acute problems may very well aggravate the tensions which now exist in the Canadian family.
Severe economic problems are controlling the country rather than the other way around. Despite their strong and vibrant economy, Albertans are concerned about the trends in other regions of Canada. Our strength depends on the strength of these regions, and we look to the federal government to take action in its sphere of influence.
Alberta would like to see less government influence over the economy and more reliance on the private sector. Government
April 17, 1980

waste and mismanagement have to be curbed, and a climate of confidence created for investment in our country. This requires an answer to the problems of high interest rates, inflation, and government debt, and a comprehensive industrial development strategy. Alberta is willing to make its contribution, and in fact already forgoes S4 billion in oil and gas revenues each year. Loans have been provided through the Heritage Fund to six other provinces, helping Canada's balance of payments by lowering interest payments outside of the country. And the Alberta government is willing to increase the amount available for provincial loans.
These remarks tonight would not be complete if we just dealt with economic problems. I want to talk for a minute about social problems. Just as we should not be diverted from our economic problems by the national unity problem, we should not allow these two problems to divert our attention from the deep social problems in our midst today. The powerful tide of change which is sweeping across the world today is tearing our families apart, rocking our economy, paralysing our political systems, shattering our values, while at the same time paradoxically sowing the seeds for a saner, wiser and more humane society. For more on this I would refer you to Alvin Toffler's "The Third Wave". It is an interesting analysis of the changes that are taking place in the world today.
What we must learn from this process is that development in our supertechnological society should focus on values of humanism, on values of the person, not just on values of the economy. We must encompass our natural environment, social relations, education. Those are the questions that are concerning Canadians very much tonight.
We in this House must ask ourselves, as this Parliament proceeds, some very hard questions about the quality of life in our society today. Why have crime, violence, divorce, suicide, abortions, drug abuse, and alcoholism soared in the last decade? In 1978, 140,000 Canadians were victims of violent crimes. Divorce rates have doubled in the last decade. More than one in four marriages in Canada ends in divorce. Suicide is the number two cause of death among 15 to 34 year olds. It is not my purpose here tonight to assign blame regarding these very complicated and meaningful statistics, but only to indicate to this House the ethical crisis that we face in the midst of a growing economy. Politicians cannot solve these problems alone; we are the first to know that. But I think there must be more leadership from all levels of government today concerning the deep social problems in our midst.
We must ask why there are so many poor among us in our society? Some 24 per cent of Canadian families lack the financial means to ensure the basic necessities of adequate food, clothing and shelter. Three-quarters of our elderly are living on incomes of less than $5,000 a year. The struggle by native people to share in the benefits of our life continues. This is a point I have argued on several occasions in the time I have been in this House, namely, the need to integrate more closely economic and social planning on behalf of human beings who, after all, are the object of our policies, not just national statistics. With a strong and united Canada dedicated to the
The Address-Mr. Roche
economic and social well-being of its citizens and the citizens of other countries, I think our country would be able to exercise a more vigorous role in the international community. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a few remarks in that area.
A declaration of support for the boycott of the Moscow Olympics would today be a clear sign of leadership in the international community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: By delaying that decision the government is merely weakening the effectiveness of the response. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been condemned by the world community. A boycott of the Olympics is the strongest indication of our condemnation that we can deliver to the people of the Soviet Union without entering into military action. So why do we not take this initiative now? The people of Canada are looking to us in this House to give them some leadership in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In the past Canadian foreign policy has been diverted from longer term interests by short-term economic problems and goals.
Another publication that I commend to members of this House is the Brandt commission report. The Brandt commission has been studying for two years the whole problem of North-South relations. It is the finest single document you can put your hands on today, putting into perspective the problems of and the solutions to the north-south dilemma-the dilemma of the rich and poor nations of the world. It is called, "North-South: A Program for Survival," and it outlines the magnitude of the changes and the multidimensional dangers and unprecedented opportunities we now face in a world which is changing rapidly before Our eyes.
A new way of thinking is required to turn our mutual interests with developing countries into creative partnerships- partnerships which would increase the chances of achieving global stability and security, and meet the human needs of the world's peoples. This is an opportunity and an obligation for Canada. Canada needs to develop an integrated policy in response to changing conditions in the world. Such a policy would include trade investment, aid and immigration objectives. The UN special session on international development strategy for the beginning of the third development decade is fast approaching. What is the policy of the government toward it? What thinking is being done to advance a realistic, sensible approach for Canada in the North-South role? A start, Mr. Speaker, would certainly be a parliamentary review of foreign policy. Our party has been advocating this for some time. We believe that in the ten years since foreign policy has been totally reviewed in our country, so many things have happened-it would take a whole speech in itself to outline all the things that happened in the 1970s-to make a further review necessary and that the government would be well advised to move in this area.
I applaud the government decision to establish an ambassador for disarmament. The arms race poses the greatest

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Simmons
immediate threat to world security, and a strong Canadian initiative should be welcome. An ambassador will help to put the spotlight on disarmament and mobilize public opinion behind the necessity to attack this very real problem. We face a dilemma here. Security is a two-sided coin. Just as we must maintain our commitment to NATO and play our role militarily in contributing to the defence of the western world, so at the same time we must work through the UN agencies to control the arms race. This seems to some people to be a contradictory position but it is only a reflection of the paradox of our age. If we are to make the world a safer place, these are the steps which must be taken by the government.
The response of the government to the plight of the IndoChinese refugees and Cubans seeking asylum in the Peruvian embassy is also to be applauded.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that in this Parliament we should look for action in the ways the directors of the United Church suggested in their letter to the Prime Minister which was published just a day or two ago, a very important letter that I commend to all members of the House. I quote this one sentence:
With what degree of urgency and priority will your government act to remedy current injustices at home and overseas? How will the official welcome sound to refugees needing Canadian asylum; to native peoples with their land claims; to pensioners pauperized by inflation; to the unemployed and unemployable; to home owners ousted by record interest levels; and to the growing numbers concerned that Canada cannot continue indefinitely in social peace and prosperity without greater economic independence?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it seems such a short time since I first stood in this chamber, albeit on the other side, to deliver my maiden speech. Just over four months ago, on December 13, I spoke in the budget debate. Earlier that day I had bought a house. The same day I had registered for a French language program. After my speech that night I cast my vote in the House and the government fell.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, you will probably be aware that last evening I cast my first vote in this Parliament. I should also mention that yesterday I registered for a French language program. Today I am giving my speech. It goes without saying that I received the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) full blessing to make this speech tonight after I had sworn an oath before him that I would not buy a house today!
Mr. Speaker, first of all let me convey my congratulations to Madam Speaker on her election as presiding officer of this chamber. I want to assure her and all those who sit in the chair, including you, Mr. Speaker, of my loyalty and support for the important principles that the office represents and to wish you the best for a very enjoyable and successful term.
My colleagues, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote), and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), are to be commended for moving and seconding the motion to draft an address in reply, for the eloquent manner in which they did it, and for setting the commendable tone of this entire debate today.
My riding of Burin-St. George's comprises 102 communities along the south and the southwest corner of the island of Newfoundland. I do want to thank my electors and my workers there for their support in two elections, on November 19 and February 18. I shall do my very best to carry out the mandate given me in this Parliament to work with others in ail parts of this House on behalf of the people of Burin-St. George's and Canada.
While I am on the subject of February 18, allow me to recall a couple of incidents which I am sure made impressions on all of us on election night. The gentleman who is now the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in that very magnanimous and thoroughly dignified speech on election night in which we conceded his government's defeat at the polls, I believe made us all very proud to be Canadians, and I want to thank him sincerely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: If the former prime minister, the right hon. member for Yellowhead, gave us one of the high points on election night, it was certainly his minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who clearly provided the low point that night. That should not be construed as any aspersion on the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure the hon. member for St. John's West is just as big an embarrassment to the Leader of the Opposition as he is to all of us in Newfoundland and all of us in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: On election night the hon. member for St. John's West intimidated voters from coast to coast with his remarks on television, and he impugned the integrity of fully more than half of the people in this chamber. That kind of insolence cannot go unchallenged. Coming, as it did, from the minister of finance for Canada, renders it all the more reprehensible and incredulous. I know the hon. member was under great pressure that night, and now that he has recovered his composure and regained his sanity-I must admit he looks these days as normal to me as he ever looked-and now that the circumstances are less emotional, I invite and urge him to apologize to this chamber and to the country for his election night outburst. I do not think it can go unchallenged, and I invite him to do the honourable thing, and to do it very soon.
Just as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for St. John's West evoked in me on election night feelings of pride on the one hand and of disgust and pity on the other, so it was the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) who provided for me-
April 17, 1980


Mrs. Mitchell:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: I thought my good friend from Vancouver would cheer on this one. It was the Leader of the New Democratic Party who provided for me comic relief during the campaign. Every night he was on television proffering his solutions to the day's problems. One night he solved inflation. The next night he had a definitive answer regarding high interest rates, and the next night the energy dilemma succumbed to his ruthless intellectual stamina. So it went throughout the campaign.
It was an American president, Mr. Franklin Roosevelt, who promised to deliver the goods within 100 days of taking office. Our own late Prime Minister Pearson talked about 60 days of decision. Both were mere tortoises compared with our friend from Oshawa. At the stupendous rate which he cures the country's ills, as prime minister he could easily deliver Utopia by the end of the month. He is our very own patron saint of instant solutions. His cures were so complete and so allembracing during the campaign that I became concerned about his very survival. At the rapid rate at which he was solving the nation's problems it was clear to me that by week's end he, with no more worlds to conquer, would, like Alexander the Great before him, sit down and cry himself to death.
Then, just as things were looking their bleakest for our very own "made in Canada" patron saint of instant solutions, a Liberal-who else?-came to his rescue-albeit a Liberal gone astray, the former Liberal member for Northumberland, the present NDP member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) who has positioned herself directly behind her leader, which is to her credit but not his. "All the better to jump you, dear leader", which is exactly what she was obliged to do during the campaign. In the interest of liberalism she did it, you understand. Hon. members will recall the incident, I am sure. I know NDP people do not want to hear about it. It is a sore thing for them, but it happened, so let us talk about it. Our patron saint of instant solutions had just administered his daily potion to the ailing nation. The problem that night was Russian aggression in Afghanistan. His cure was military force.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You had better listen to him.


Roger Simmons: I do not just have to listen. I can give the hon. lady the press clippings and the actual quotations of her leader's comments about the need to use military force, if necessary. He was going to back Mr. Carter to the hilt, the hon. member will recall, including, he said, military force, if necessary. I am sure the hon. lady does not like it any more now than she liked it during the campaign, and that is why what I have to say at the moment is the absolute truth about the subject.


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


Roger Simmons: His cure was military force. His cure, maybe, but he neglected to consult the good doctor from New Westminster-Coquitlam. Indeed, as I hear it, he also forgot to
The Address-Mr. Simmons
consult his party. That was when and why she jumped him. "He is not speaking for me" she said, "not speaking for the caucus or for the party". Those were her actual words, and she said them just two weeks before election day. I refer to the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam.


Mr. Crosby:: She didn't say it loud enough.


Roger Simmons: Oh, she said it loud enough, but one of the handicaps we had, I say to my friend in the official opposition from Halifax, was not that he could not hear but that the NDP network was at work that night.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


Roger Simmons: The same NDP network that was at work during the byelection in Burin-St. George's last November, the CBC, in case the hon. member is not sure.


Mr. Blackburn:: Get on with your speech.


An hon. Member:: What are you smoking, Roger?


Roger Simmons: They are tender tonight, are they not, Mr. Speaker?
It comes as no surprise that in this throne speech debate the Leader of the New Democratic Party on Tuesday of this week was no longer the sabre rattler that his friend called him during the campaign. He was no longer the warmonger of less than three months ago. Now he tells us how much rice we could buy for the price of an F-18A aircraft. As with every other problem he has ever confronted and his party has ever confronted, he solved it just like that the same day. What was his solution for the old guns or butter argument? He solved it in the usual manner by coming down squarely on both sides of the issue.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Where do you stand?


Roger Simmons: I will tell the hon. lady in a moment exactly where I stand.
In January the Leader of the New Democratic Party advocated guns. In April he advocated butter.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No, rice.


Roger Simmons: Oh, the wondrous advantages of a forked tongue! Of course, speaking out of both sides of your mouth is somewhat less hazardous when you know full well you will never ever have to put your money where your mouth is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: In any event, I am delighted that the hon. member for Oshawa is chastened by the experience which his friend, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, put him through during the campaign. He is chastened by it. Now he Finds himself happily on the side of humanity and compas-

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Simmons
sion, a very good place to be. I thank our Liberal in exile for setting him straight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sounds like jealousy.


Roger Simmons: Like that hon. member, we on the government benches are also profoundly concerned over the present international situation. That is why in the throne speech the government announced its intention to appoint an ambassador for disarmament and thereby action our concern over the high proportion of the world's scarce resources which is being expended on military hardware while humanitarian needs are going largely unattended.
That brings me to the subject of those in this Parliament who, unlike the hon. member for Oshawa and his happy band of followers, had the chance to put their money where their mouths are, those who have had, albeit briefly, the reins of power. In the brief few days we have been here during this session, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Tories learned little from their chronologically short though otherwise harmfully long stint in office as the government of this country. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition berated us in the last two or three days here in the House and on television. He berated us rather openly for not bringing down a budget, just one week into Parliament and barely six weeks after the government was sworn into office.


An hon. Member:: Your microphone is not working.


An hon. Member:: Add one minute to his time.


Roger Simmons: Thank you.


An hon. Member:: He has had enough time.


Roger Simmons: What about eastern Canada? Are you not concerned about that?


An hon. Member:: Yes, we are very concerned.


An hon. Member:: Of course the east needs help.


An hon. Member:: Six months in the House of Commons and already he is a tiger.


Roger Simmons: The Leader of the Opposition has been berating us about the absence of any budget in the first week of this Parliament or six weeks after the government was sworn into office. Does he have a short memory, or just a convenient one? The Tory administration which he led waited five months after the election before it would even face Parliament, five whole months, and another nine weeks after that before bringing down a budget.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition subscribes to the popular conception in this country so eloquently articulated by his minister of finance during the election, the popular conception that Liberals are more able at governing the country. Is that why the Leader of the Opposition insists that a budget be produced in less than one-third the time it took his own
administration to produce a budget? If he too is cursed with a forced tongue-with a forked tongue-


An hon. Member:: Forced tongue?


Roger Simmons: It is the member for Oshawa who has the forced tongue. It is the right hon. memberfor Yellowhead, I suggest, who might have the forked tongue. If he does, the very least he should do is learn to wield it to his own advantage.


An hon. Member:: A sore tongue.


Roger Simmons: Considering the budget which they brought down ultimately, the agonizing weight of five months and then another nine weeks was pleasant compared to the reality. "Short-term pain for long-term gain", the Tory finance minister called it, or to put it differently, "I am certain 1 will know how to cure a patient just as soon as I do the autopsy".


An hon. Member:: The patient died.


Roger Simmons: Is it any wonder that the right hon. member for Yellowhead and his colleagues have returned by the grace of the Canadian people to the opposition benches?


An hon. Member:: How original.


Roger Simmons: I come now, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Finally.


Roger Simmons: I come now to the gravest issue of all which faces this nation-


Some hon. Members:: The Liberal government.


Roger Simmons: -its very survival as a nation. I have never felt prouder to be a Canadian or more comfortably at home in this nation than during the speech in this chamber on Tuesday by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: In a most eloquent manner he spelled out for us the very essence of this confederation and the urgent justification for its continuance, though, of course, in a renewed form which recognizes present day realities and requirements.
I was not born a Canadian. My fatherland was the dominion of Newfoundland which was a sovereign state for over a hundred years until 1949 when it joined confederation. I still remember the campaign in favour of Newfoundland's joining confederation as well as the referenda. I recall the anxiety, the bitterness and the fear of the day. My father who is now 75, though he voted in favour of confederation, still considers himself a Newfoundlander first but takes pride in being a Canadian. My father as well as many other persons in Newfoundland who remember the events that preceded 1949 have discovered that it is possible to be both a Newfoundlander and a Canadian. And I will tell you why.
April 17, 1980

[ Translation]
When Newfoundland became part of our confederation, we did not relinquish, suppress or liquidate our sovereignty. On the contrary, we increased it, we put it to work in order to steer our aspirations towards economic and cultural freedom. We have indeed succeeded.
Freedom is an empty word if you have no market on which to sell your goods, if you have no employment, if you run the risk of losing your heritage, your culture because you are overly concerned by personal financial hardships. Our culture and our heritage are precious to us Newfoundlanders, and today we are witnessing a thriving period that we did not experience in the forties and all of that was made possible because we are now part of Canada.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, our culture and economic freedom have flourished remarkably since 1949, and that, because of confederation. Ours is the only Canadian province which negotiated its union with Canada during this century. Despite everything, after an alliance of 31 years, we believe that union must be improved. So, we are not surprised that the people of Quebec, one of the founding provinces of confederation, should ask that a closer look be taken of the terms of confederation after 113 years. There is not a single province in Canada which would agree to confederation continuing as it exists today. All political parties in this House have expressed publicly their wish to see confederation improved, renewed. And our Prime Minister has indicated to us that he and his government not only agree but are eager to work towards that end.
There is not a province anywhere in this country, be it one of the western provinces, to which reference was made a moment ago, Quebec, my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or any other, which should be content to have the Canadian confederation existing in its present form. On that I believe, partisanship aside, either in this House or across the country, we are all very much agreed. As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday and on many occasions before, we in this government are ready to get on with the job. That is why a Yes result in the Quebec referendum is unthinkable. It is unthinkable both in terms of Quebec's interests, in the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the interests of every province and of every Canadian.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to my fellow countrymen in the province of Quebec to record a resounding No vote on May 20 because that is the only vote which will launch, not only Quebec but my province, this nation and all of us, on the road to renewed and better federalism. Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by asking you to convey to Madam Speaker my sincere best wishes and congratulations on her appointment to
The Address-Mr. Thomson
the prestigious position of Speaker of this House. While I have only been a member of this House since last May, during that time I have learned to appreciate the difficulty of her task, and the integrity and the courage demanded by her assignment.
It is my hope to convey to this House this evening the feelings of my fellow Albertans, and particularly the feelings of my constituents in Calgary South as they relate to national unity. The people of Calgary South are very concerned about the Quebec referendum and about the possibility that Quebeckers may choose to separate from the rest of Canada. The people of Calgary South earnestly hope that our country will stay together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Thomson: I will not presume to speak of the concerns of the Quebeckers in the national unity debate, other than to say that my constituents have no sympathy for the argument of sovereignty-association. It is equally important for Quebeckers to know that Albertans pray with all their hearts that Quebeckers will find it within their hearts to stay within confederation. Albertans are deeply concerned for the future of Canada. They are frustrated and discouraged with their federal government, but they are loyal to Canada and they want to resolve those frustrations within the context of confederation. There is very little support for the idea of western Canadian separation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his speech stated that disagreement among the members of this House should not be based on regional interests, but should be based on the concept of the whole which we are trying to serve in different ways. I am certain that each member of this House is trying to serve Canada no less than he.
There is no argument, I believe, in this House that this House must represent the national will and the national interest. But, Mr. Speaker, if I do not represent the regional aspirations of Alberta and of my constituents in Calgary South as those aspirations relate to the matters governed by federal jurisdiction, who will represent those interests?
In our present federal electoral system it certainly would be unreasonable for me to accept the view that the two most populated provinces of Canada by themselves represent the national will or the national interest.
The Prime Minister talked of patriotism and the feeling of belonging to and of loving a country. I believe that every Canadian deeply loves Canada in his own way, even if he expresses it differently than his fellow Canadians.
I spoke of the frustration which exists in Alberta today. In Calgary South these concerns, frustrations and even hostility are expressed very openly almost every day. What puzzles me, and what puzzles other Albertans, is the lack of understanding by eastern Canadians of the spirit and the potential of western Canada. We have failed to get through to eastern Canada.
The Prime Minister has stated on a number of occasions that he does not understand the west, and this is evident, unfortunately, by his government's statements and actions

April 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Thomson
which seemingly are designed to antagonize the people of western Canada deliberately. Let me give two recent examples of this antagonism. They are with respect to the Prince Rupert terminal facility which has been spoken about in this House on numerous occasions, and the reneging of the oil sands pricing agreement. It may well be that the oil sands pricing agreement should be changed. Maybe Syncrude and Suncor should not receive escalating world prices, but the point I want to make is that these decisions were made unilaterally by the federal government without the slightest consultation. In the case of the oil sands pricing agreement, does consultation mean a telephone call one hour before it is announced to the press? Is that consultation?
Metrication and federal intrusions into housing and medicare are other examples of policies which have alienated western Canadians, just to name a few. The domestic oil price freeze of 1973, and numerous government interventions in the oil and gas industry are seen by westerners as discrimination against their interests. Albertans, particularly those from the generations preceding me, have enormous pride in Canada. I am not trying to suggest that their pride is any greater than that of the gentleman from Newfoundland or members from the other provinces of this country. All I am trying to say is that people of Alberta have a feeling of belonging to something that they have built themselves with very little help from the rest of Canada. These are self-made men and women who have developed self-reliance. They are entrepreneurs and are fiercely independent. They resent deeply the heavy hand of government.
The farmers and cattle raising communities in Alberta are bitter because of the lack of help they received during the hard times of the 1920s and 1930s when there was no, or very little, market for their produce, and the droughts of those years destroyed many of their crops. These people feel that they were left to fend for themselves during the years of the depression with precious little assistance from the central government.
During recent years transportation and terminal facilities have failed to keep pace with western Canadian grain production. Tariff and freight rates have consistently discriminated against western Canada. Albertans feel that they have been ignored, and now, when western Canadians are enjoying prosperity from their natural resources and agriculture, they feel that the central government and eastern Canada are trying to steal something away from them for which they have worked very hard. They feel that the rules of the game have been changed in mid stream.
There is also the firm belief that westerners have been unfairly called upon to pay world prices for eastern manufactured goods which are protected by tariffs while, at the same time, they are being asked to sell their resources and their crops at less than world value. Since 1947 when the Leduc oil field was discovered, Alberta has moved ahead in giant steps, largely because of the strength of its oil and gas industry. I
was fortunate enough to be a part of this economic development, and I can say that eastern investors would not help to finance this development and that the oil and gas exploration industry was forced to turn to the United States for investment. Again this is one of a number of reasons for the feeling of hostility which expresses itself today in Alberta. Is it small wonder that the oil and gas industry is owned to such a high degree by foreigners?
It is ironic that this ownership is resented by many economic nationalists today, and yet without those foreign investors we would not enjoy the benefits that we do today from the oil and gas resources of western Canada. I think that is ironic, considering that we have today in the country a feeling of economic nationalism. It is also a mystery to me why the Speech from the Throne indicates the intention of the government to buy back foreign ownership when Canada is facing a crucial shortage of needed capital to help it achieve energy self-sufficiency.
Does the Liberal government or, for that matter, does anyone really believe that Canada really has the necessary resources in this country to finance energy self-sufficiency? No, my friends, we do not have it. And to lead the Canadian people to believe that we do is false. Many easterners think that Alberta is greedy and is being unreasonable in its demands with respect to oil and gas pricing. The oil and gas resources of Alberta are being depleted quickly. Over the next ten years our production capability will be reduced by more than one half. Alberta has a very short time to diversify its economy so that future generations may enjoy the same prosperity that we do today. Our production will be reduced by one-half in ten years' time. I am not exaggerating. Those are known facts as stated by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. They are well known to members on all sides of the House.
Alberta is not, and has not been, inflexible with respect to the pricing of its oil and gas, as some people would have us believe. The province of Alberta has made an unparalleled subsidy to the rest of Canada in terms of the difference between the world price for oil and that being charged to Canadians. The sum total of this subsidy since 1973 has been in the order of $15 billion. The agreement which was reached between the Conservative government and the province of Alberta would have provided further subsidies to Canadians totalling almost $20 billion over the next five years.
There are a few other points on the energy issue which I would like to draw to the attention of members of the House that relate specifically to the oil prices. The federal minister of energy made reference in his speech yesterday to the fact that the former Conservative government would have let OPEC determine Canadian oil prices. That statement is not true, Mr. Speaker. The agreement reached by our government would have ultimately tied Canadian oil prices to 85 per cent of the composite price for oil in the United States. This is usually referred to as the Chicago composite price. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the OPEC price today, nor would it in
April 17, 1980

the future. The minister went on to say that the federal government loses when OPEC gains. The reason for this is quite simple. It is due to the fact that under the Liberal energy policy established in 1975 they chose to subsidize Canadian consumers for the difference between the cost of imported oil and the domestic oil price. In short, the Liberal government chose to deficit finance the cost of this subsidy. That is why the federal government is losing when OPEC gains.
The Liberal government deliberately chose to pass on the debt that was being incurred as the result of the difference between imported oil and the domestic oil price to future generations of Canadians. Our government, the Conservative government, believed that Canadians should face up to the reality of the cost of imported oil and that this cost should be borne by Canadians who are using that oil today, and not by our children.
Another point with respect to OPEC oil prices which I think many Canadians misunderstand is that they believe that OPEC oil prices are still being determined by a cartel and that this price bears no relation to fair market value.
I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I could finish this paragraph. Let me just finish this one paragraph-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), but I did not hear consent for him to finish that paragraph.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) for the answers he gave me this morning about the postal service.

I was pleased to hear the minister say this morning that he does not wish to cut back Saturday postal service in the rural areas. I was pleased to hear him say that this is also the present Liberal government's policy. Many of my colleagues and I have received numerous representations protesting the proposals of the previous Conservative government.
Let me mention at the outset several reasons why the people of my constituency found the Conservative proposals unacceptable. In my constituency I have some 34 municipalities as well
Adjournment Debate
as many unincorporated villages and village communities which would be affected if there were any reduction in Saturday postal service.
First of all, before I proceed I should like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), our postal critic, who encouraged me to raise my constituents' concerns regarding their postal service.
The postal service in my constituency is a vital public service, Mr. Speaker. The postal service must be looked at as the hub of a wheel, not as a mere spoke in a wheel. The Saturday postal service is an economic hub in the rural village wheel. If the post office were closed on Saturdays the rural residents would drive to the nearest city where there is a sub post office. They would do all their shopping there, to the detriment of the smaller village. The removal of money from a village also means the removal of jobs.
Weekly newspapers would also be hit. Many newspapers in my riding publish in the latter part of the week. If the newspapers did not make Friday delivery, they would not reach their destination until Monday. Hence, all the advertising functions are lost, hurting the small businessmen who want to capitalize on the day many people come to town.
The postal service in rural constituencies is also a political hub in the rural wheel. For many rural citizens the post office is the only link with the federal government. They see the post office as more than a place for stamps and mail; the post office is the place to pick up income tax forms, passport forms, and information on government programs.
I should also like to argue that the post offices are a social hub in the rural way of life. Postmasters in my constituency are community leaders. They are dedicated to their tasks. They believe in service to the public. They provide a personal service that cannot be found in larger, more impersonal urban centres. Saturday, for the postmasters, is one of their busiest days.
In the February 15, 1980, issue of the Journal the previous postmaster general was reported as saying that he was studying the idea of closing post offices on Saturdays in order to save money. In fact the previous government has closed Pembroke and Peterborough on an experimental basis. The response to the previous government's suggestions can be illustrated by some of the representations I received from my constituency. Specifically, for example, Mr. Drebinsky, the secretary-treasurer of the rural municipality of Gilbert Plains, writes as follows:
The reeve and council of the rural municipality of Gilbert Plains strongly object to the proposal. It may be fine in larger towns and cities. But it will only further reduce the business in smaller communities if Saturday closing is implemented.
He goes on to say:
There must be other means of reducing Canada Post costs. Please pass on our objections to the higher authorities in the best way possible.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the mayor and council of the village of Gilbert Plains have passed the following resolution:

April 17, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Whereas current plans of the Canada Post are to implement a Saturday closing of postal services in all small communities in Canada;
And whereas the council of the village of Gilbert Plains deems this action to be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community and is of the opinion that such actions will adversely affect the survival of all small communities;
And whereas the council of the village of Gilbert Plains is of the opinion that all services cannot be equated with dollars as is the apparent suggestion of Canada Post;
Therefore be it resolved that we petition our local representatives to both the provincial and federal governments to intervene and stop the actions of Canada Post which are so detrimental to the well-being of small communities such as ours.
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, the reeve and the council of the rural municipality of Ochre River have passed a resolution which reads:
Whereas closing of the post office on Saturdays will impose a severe problem towards smaller communities, both towards businesses and mail service to customers;
And whereas a move in this direction will further speed up closing of smaller communities as well as movement out of the surrounding country;
Therefore be it resolved that we strongly protest against the closing of the post office on Saturdays.
The secretary-treasurer of the village of Minitonas, Mr. Bruce, writes on behalf of that northern village in my constituency:
The opportunity to have mail service available in the small communities is vital to the economy of the community. I cannot estimate the numbers of persons who come to towns Saturday to get mail. Likely an accurate figure would not be available. The important fact is, however, while in town these individuals, in most cases, also shop while in town. Thus the business places prosper. If the post offices are closed, a portion of the monies usually spent will be lost and the economy of the town suffers.
My constituency extends roughly 200 miles north and south. From the southern end I have also had representations concerning proposed postal closure. Mrs. Ed Rempel, the secretary-treasurer of Plumas, writes:
This idea is very unfavorable. Some people only come to town on Saturdays to do their weekly shopping, pick up the mail and other business.
Our daily papers come through the mail. They are a day late now. This would mean the Friday paper wouldn't be gotten until Monday. Wc the committee of Plumas do not see it as being feasible to close the post office on Saturday.
The mail at present is slow enough coming now. Why delay it more?
My concern is shared by my rural colleagues as well. For example, my neighbour to the west, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), recently sent out a questionnaire. Yorkton-Melville is a rural constituency very much like Dauphin. Cards were sent with the message: "Yes, I am in favour of retaining Saturday postal service in rural communities". Within nine days the hon. member received well over 500 responses stating opposition to the proposed Saturday closing. Over 500 people immediately replied, signing their names to the document. Many signatures represented husbands, wives and families. I thank my colleague for allowing me to bring these responses here tonight to show you, Mr. Speaker.
But Yorkton-Melville is not the only constituency thus affected. Many of my colleagues from other ridings such as Prince Albert, Humboldt-Lake Centre, The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Kootenay West, Mission-Port Moody, as well as Selkirk-Interlake, have also been concerned and have expressed their concern to me.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the minister again for his response this morning. I commend him for giving a straight answer. May I say that we in this House will be holding him to his words, just as our constituents will who asked us to raise this issue.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has traditionally played an important role both in the development of this nation's economy and its social fabric, and the Post Office continues to perform a vital role in the every-day lives of all Canadians. For this reason the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), in answering the question put this morning by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky), sought to reassure not only the members of this House but also those Canadians living in rural areas that no unilateral decision would be made concerning Saturday delivery on rural routes. The minister clearly said that no such changes would be made without full consultation with those Canadians who would be affected by such a decision.
The Post Office, like any organization, must constantly review its operations if its services are to remain up-to-date. Demographic patterns are changing constantly across Canada. New communities begin and grow rapidly; other communities decline. If the Post Office is to operate efficiently and economically in the best interests of all Canadians, changes in service will have to be made, but we are always cognizant of the fact that all Canadians are entitled to good service wherever they live.
Recently the Post Office has had to adjust to the rapidly escalating costs of energy. The high cost of energy is a reality confronting individual Canadians from coast to coast and it seriously affects the cost of moving the mails.
Governments have been exhorting the Canadian public to practise energy conservation for obvious reasons but mainly because the money we pay for foreign oil has an adverse effect on the nation's economy and our balance of payments. The energy problem affects the pocketbooks of all Canadians and that is one reason why Post Office officials have been considering the possibility of reducing service on 5,000 rural routes, in order to conserve energy. We cannot exhort the Canadian public to conserve energy without attempting to reduce the government's own consumption of energy. Of course, this has to be balanced against the fact that Canadians want to receive the best mail service possible. In fact, the Post Office has been improving service while reducing operating costs. The minister's aim is to ensure that all Canadians, wherever they live, receive adequate service from Canada Post and that while the search for increases in efficiency go on, the service does not decrease.
April 17, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There being no other members who have presented their names for debate this
Adjournment Debate
evening, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.11 p.m.

Friday, April 18, 1980