1980-04-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the Canadian Television network CTV recently produced and televised a program entitled "Campus GiveAway" on the television program "W5"; and whereas committees of Chinese Canadians objected to the program as racist; and whereas, as a result, Mr. Murray Chercover, the president of CTV, has now acknowledged that distorted statistics, combined with the visual presentation, made the program appear racist in tone and effect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House condemns racism in any form, applauds the efforts of the committees of the concerned Chinese Canadians, welcomes the admission of president Chercover, and urges the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CTV, and other media to take steps to ensure that this sort of program is never aired again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has a staff of fewer than 20 and already has a president and three vice-presidents and, therefore, that the appointing this week of a fourth vice-president-who was drawn directly from the Prime Minister's office-is totally
superfluous and highly partisan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Prime Minister reconsider his decision to promote his correspondence secretary, Hellie Wilson, to the position of fourth vice-president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRICE OF OIL IMPORTED FROM MEXICO-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the government is contemplating the importation of Mexican oil at a price in excess of $36 per barrel, while it continues to hold the price for western Canadian crude oil at less than $15 per barrel, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That the government be censured for its hypocrisy in claiming greater benefit to Canada by paying more to the Mexican oil industry for their oil than it would pay to Canadians for our own.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL LOANS ACT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the fact that the Small Loans Act was passed in 1939 to serve problems of a different era, and in view of the fact that the act can now harm the very consumers it was intended to protect-specifically, those who require a loan under $1,500-and that the Superintendent of Insurance has indicated in committee that the act now has no value, I move,

April 18, 1980
seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House does hereby repeal the act immediately, thereby providing long-overdue relief to credit unions and caisses populates which are so restricted under the current regulations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


REPORTED OUTBREAK OF &quot;RED RASH&quot; DISEASE IN DAUPHIN, MANITOBA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In the light of reports that a "red rash" virus has so far affected 200 young people aged five to twenty years in the Dauphin area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare to investigate reports of a serious disease affecting people in the Dauphin area, and to co-operate with the Manitoba Department of Health and Community Services to deal with the situation.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SALE OF GASOLINE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Americans are coming across our border in increasing numbers, buying our subsidized gasoline and oil products at prices at least 50 cents a gallon cheaper than are available in the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this government institute immediately control measures to prevent foreign purchases of gasoline and oil products in excess of the reasonable demands of tourists and businessmen.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As a result of the massive lay-offs in the auto industry which have resulted from the inability of the Canadian government to enforce the "fair share" provisions of the existing auto pact, with subsequent economic hardship to Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to proceed forthwith to Washington for the purpose of renegotiating the auto trade pact in order to ensure that the Canadian industry receives a proper share of all manufacturing in the auto industry based on the Canadian percentage of total sales in the North American market.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett), I move:
That this House urges the government to review all the employee pension plans that come under its jurisdiction, and to take the necessary steps to provide that in all cases the pensions of surviving widows-or of surviving widowers where applicable-will be not less than 75 per cent of the contributor's pension, and that the eventual goal be a full 100 per cent pension for either survivor, in accordance with the principle of equality between men and women.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 18, 1980


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Howard Crosby (Halifax West): Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The recent decision of the Canadian Transport Commission, refusing Eastern Provincial Airways permission to establish a Halifax-Toronto route, has jeopardized the air transport industry in Atlantic Canada by endangering the viability of Eastern Provincial Airways and contradicted the recommendations of the Atlantic provincial premiers. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to conduct a review of air transport policy that allegedly precludes EPA from servicing the Halifax-Toronto route.
Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who indicated in his press conference this morning that he had been consulting with leaders of the economic summit countries and other countries to try to figure out where he wants to go regarding sanctions against Iran because of the hostage situation, and sanctions against the Soviet Union because of their invasion of Afghanistan.
Since he has had two months to consider this, and has said nothing publicly, and since Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain has certainly made her views known publicly, Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany has certainly made his views known publicly. President Carter has certainly made his views known publicly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -when is the Prime Minister of Canada going to make his views known publicly with regard to sanctions?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. lady knows, I am a rather modest person.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: For a very good reason.


An hon. Member:: There is no joke there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If Prime Minister Thatcher, Chancellor Schmidt and President Carter, and even the then prime minister Joe Clark, have not managed to have any effect on the hostage situation in Tehran or on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, I think she is lending me great credit indeed if she thinks the world is hanging on my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker; perhaps the Prime Minister of Canada might try. I would like specifically to mention the Olympic boycott. The other day I mentioned that some 57 countries have made their views known in that they favour an Olympic boycott, many of them being from the Third World.
In his press conference this morning, the Prime Minister implied that he, personally, did not favour a boycott of the Olympic Games. Could he state if this is the official view of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 beg to differ. I did not imply that. I made the point that my personal views were irrelevant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There are a lot of Canadians who think that, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In his press conference, the Prime Minister, when he was talking about sanctions, indicated that certain measures that had been taken by the former government against the Soviet Union because of its invasion of Afghanistan-specifically, the measure to cut off scientific exchanges- were no longer in effect. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, how many more of the sanctions that were imposed by the former government have been cancelled by his government-and why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I don't know where the hon. lady got that information. 1 said no such thing, and I know of no measures which have been cancelled by our government. On the contrary, in December, when the campaign had just begun, I indicated that our party supported the measures that had been taken on the economic front by prime minister Clark, and there has been no action taken to withdraw from any of those measures.
158

April 18, 1980
Oral Questions


BOYCOTTING OF OLYMPIC GAMES IN MOSCOW
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the open vote taken within the legislature of the province of Ontario-a decisive vote supported by the leader of the Liberal party- calling upon the Government of Canada to support the boycott of the Moscow games, will the Prime Minister not, now, tell the people of Ontario and, indeed, the people of Canada, that Canada will not be represented at the Moscow Olympics?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that we hope that our government would make its policy known before the meeting next weekend-a week from this weekend-of the Canadian Olympic Committee.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the meantime, 1 hope to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs-who is coming back this weekend from Zimbabwe-on the efforts he has made to seek a consensus among an increasing number of those nations which in January voted against the Soviet invasion and to get their views on what effective measures we could indicate to show collectively to the Soviet Union-


An hon. Member:: What are your views?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that not only the capitalist countries, not only a few western countries, not only a small number of African and Asian countries, but a great number of non-aligned were taking renewed action against the Soviet Union.
* * %


INQUIRY WHETHER DEPARTMENT PAID FOR SURVEY ON OIL PRICING AND ENERGY MATTERS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister confirm that the federal government is following the dubious practice of the government of Ontario by using taxpayers' money to do public opinion surveys which it keeps secret?
Specifically, would the minister confirm that his department paid for a survey done by Canadian Facts during the first week in April to determine the attitude of the public on oil pricing and related energy matters?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, 1 am not aware of such a survey. 1 will inquire in the department to see whether any such survey was ordered, and I will be very happy to report to the hon. member. I will let him know in the next question period.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the House if it is government policy for other departments to do such public opinion surveys at taxpayers' expense. If so, could he tell us which departments have been doing this kind of polling? Also, would he provide the House with the results of all such polling, and the cost to the taxpayer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire, Madam Speaker. I missed the precise nature of the exchange, but I do know that surveys had been taken by some departments when we previously formed the government. I know that some surveys-subject to correction-were taken by the previous Clark administration, and it is possible that some surveys are being continued now. But I will inquire.


John Edward Broadbent: Given the importance of this question, will the Prime Minister make it his policy to make a statement in the House soon regarding the policy of the government on public opinion surveys that will cover such matters as who will pay for them, how much of each department's budget in the coming year is going to be allocated for such surveys, and whether he believes-as we do in this party-that if surveying is done, there is an obligation that that information be made available forthwith to all members of the House of Commons and to the public of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the New Democratic Party will agree that it is important for the government, in any way it can, to know what the people of Canada think about various important matters of public policy. Therefore, the idea of surveys is one which is not rejected by the hon. leader or by myself.
I think, as a general rule, we would both agree that those surveys should not be purely political in nature; in other words, they must tend toward informing the administration of administrative and policy problems rather than on partisan problems. I certainly would agree that no partisan survey should be made by any party in office, with public funds. Beyond that, Madam Speaker, it is possible that some surveys may elicit the kind of information that it would not be in the interest to make very widely public, but I would certainly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just say "may"; I do not know. 1 told the House I would look into it. In such cases, it might be useful to have a procedure whereby at least the leaders of other parties might be informed of the results of the survey.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister bring the House up to date on the progress he
April 18, 1980

is making with his plans to double-track Canadian National Railways from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, and when may the House expect an estimate of the cost of this very large project?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, great progress was made. 1 understand that up to 30 per cent has been double-tracked so far. I will keep the hon. member up to date as to the figures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Obviously, then, only 70 per cent remained to be done when the Prime Minister made his lavish promise. My supplementary is this: Js it true that it is the government's plan to have the CNR survey crews make their first appearance on the job to coincide with the calling of the next election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether this twinning operation has any connection with-pay attention now, Pierre; I will repeat the question for yon: I want to give you every chance to try to make an answer-the right hon. gentleman's plan to twin eastern members of Parliament with western ridings?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has dazzled us with his mathematical prowess. If he is concerned about having a real answer, maybe I could defer to the Minister of Transport.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: 1 shall try not to dazzle the hon. member with my answer.


An hon. Member:: Who are you twinned with?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This question was aired a few weeks ago in Winnipeg; the hon. gentleman should know about that. On that occasion, the progress which had been made toward double-tracking was assessed. It is rather interesting that the CN indicated that, by 1988, according to their 1978 planning, 40 per cent of CN rail between Winnipeg and the coast will be double-tracked. They will upgrade that estimate in the fall. Mr. Bandeen, the president of CN, indicated also that if western Canada continued to grow at its present momentum, double-tracking would be a reality before the end of the century.


An hon. Member:: Which century?
Oral Questions ENERGY


PRESS BRIEFING ON OIL PRICING AGREEMENT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it arises from the tawdry use of public servants for partisan purposes. Yesterday, the minister of energy instructed his officials to hold a press briefing designed to discredit an oil pricing agreement reached by the former government.
Why did the minister not have the courage to hold that press briefing himself, instead of sending his officials to do the job for him?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, no attempt was made to discredit the previous budget. That budget discredited itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Marc Lalonde: 1 said in this House last Tuesday or Wednesday, I believe, that I would make available a detailed statistical analysis of the implications of the last budget on the basis of the latest increases in the international price of oil. I gave a number of figures in my address to this House; they are on record in Hansard.
The figures were provided in more detail in statistical information which was made available to the press, and an official was available to provide the press with any information of fact in which they might be interested. Some journalists may have tried to get information concerning policy from that official but, obviously, policy has to be provided by the minister.


An hon. Member:: What a coward!


Marc Lalonde: I might also say that I was available to the press after my address in this House: I was in Room 130-S, downstairs, and talked extensively to all the press people who were there. I am still available to the press; there is no problem.


Henry Perrin Beatty: This is a sorry performance by a minister of the Crown, to use public officials for partisan purposes. 1 want to ask the minister whether he instructed his officials to withhold mention in this summary which was released in the briefing yesterday of the force majeure clause which existed in the pricing agreement and which renders this whole analysis invalid.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member seems to forget is that there was no agreement under the previous government: no agreement ever took place.


Mr. Andre:: This whole analysis is absurd, then.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it leaves the House to wonder, then, why this press conference was even held yesterday, if the

April 18, 1980
Oral Questions
minister felt there was nothing to discuss. Does the minister not feel that the time of the officials involved in trying to discredit the proposals made by the previous government could better have been used by this minister to work out his own proposals which have yet to be put to the producing provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the figures which were released yesterday were on the basis of the content of the last budget, which was rejected in this Efouse, not on the non-existent agreement that the hon. member tends to refer to.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why don't you put your own forward?


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the fact that for the past seven years there has been an inquiry by his department into the oil industry, could he explain to the House why there has been such a delay in laying charges or proceeding with this information?
Second, would he be prepared to release to the Parliament of Canada information gathered on the oil companies, so that we may have the benefit of the thousands and thousands of dollars which have been spent on this long study?
[Translation)


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a very important inquiry which covers several years. Consequently, the director has an extremely serious mandate and I think that it is in the public interest to allow him to conduct his investigation and not to rush to conclusions, thus preventing him from making an exhaustive and productive investigation.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Justice. It is my understanding that the material has now been forwarded to the Department of Justice. Could the Minister of Justice or, in his absence, the Prime Minister, give us an indication of when his department might be prepared to proceed with charges in this matter?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice is at the moment absent from the House; but he is here for the question period and will be back before the end of it.


FINANCE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, apparently, he told certain reporters that there will not be a budget, or even a financial statement or even a mini-budget until there is an oil pricing agreement; there will not even be a teensy-weensy budget.
The hon. minister was supposed to be the engineer of the defeat of the last budget. Why is he so reluctant to engineer his own budget now, four months later; and will he guarantee to the House that he can prevent the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from further falsification of what was in the budget while he waits to bring down his own budget? Will he give us that guarantee and tell us what is to happen if there is no oil pricing agreement? Why is he the reluctant debutante in bringing down a new budget?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman was the reluctant debutante, because he waited from June 4 to December 11 to bring down his budget-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -so I hope that I will not delay any longer than he did. I understand that he had legitimate reasons for delaying the presentation of his budget-


An hon. Member:: That is an understatement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -as I do, because 1 do not see the point in bringing in a budget based upon uncertainty. When there is some certainty with respect to-


Harvie Andre: You are supposed to bring certainty with a budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -oil pricing arrangements, then it will be possible to proceed in satisfying the hon. member's desire that a budget be brought in. I will certainly bring in a budget as soon as possible, but I do not see that possibility within the near future, or even beyond the near future.


An hon. Member:: Before Christmas?


John Carnell Crosbie: Will the hon. minister explain to us why there is uncertainty? Is his government not the muscle-men who were going to impose an agreement on Alberta so that the increase will be less than $4 this year? Can he not, therefore, assume that the increase will be less than $4 this year, or is this gobbledegook from yesterday supposed to excuse the minister because the increase is going to be far more than $4 this year?
Does he not think that he should explain to the country whether he is going to permit the deficit to increase beyond the amount I projected? They are the muscle-men; they are going to run the west. Why can they not assume that their oil pricing
April 18, 1980

agreement will be less than $4 a barrel this year? Come on; come clean with the Canadian people!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has already stated that he hopes to negotiate an agreement with the oil producing provinces.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is going to impose one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is now suggesting that unilateral action be taken and that an immediate imposition of a settlement be made. That point has not arrived. 1 recall the former prime minister telling us that he would seek diligently to reach an agreement. He failed.


Erik Nielsen: It was reached. That is false.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But he also put in his statement that if it was necessary, unilateral action would be taken by his government. We have not reached the stage where we are contemplating unilateral action. We are proceeding in good faith to reach a negotiated settlement with producing provinces.


John Carnell Crosbie: In the recent election the minister assured the people of Canada-and the Prime Minister-that there would be no increases in oil prices this year beyond those that were outlined in the budget: $4 per barrel this year, of which $1 went into effect on January 1.
How can he now say that he is not contemplating imposing an agreement, when Alberta has made it very clear and had made it very clear during the campaign that it would accept nothing less? How can he now say that this government, his government, is not contemplating unilateral action? What kind of action is he contemplating? Is he somehow going to force Alberta to accept less, voluntarily, than what it agreed to when we were in government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman has stated that an agreement had been reached between the government of which he was a member and the province of Alberta. 1 do not believe that the budget statement itself, as I recollect it, would support the statement made by the hon. member today-


Erik Nielsen: But you know it is true.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that an agreement had been reached. If an agreement had been reached, why had it not been signed-


Harvie Andre: It needed to be typed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -so that it would be available to a new government which was faced with redoubled uncertainty-


Erik Nielsen: That is your fault.


John Carnell Crosbie: You stopped it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -as a result of the failure to reach that agreement? The hon. member obviously fails to understand the nature of negotiation. The purpose of negotiation is to have
Oral Questions
movement and some change of attitude in the process of negotiation. That is what we hope to achieve in the negotiations that we will be undertaking with the province of Alberta.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nonsense.


PLANS TO REDUCE INTEREST RATES, THEREBY INCREASING EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since more than 20,000 workers in the Canadian forest industry, and over 145,000 Canadian construction workers, are unemployed as a direct result of the government's high interest rates-which have killed the housing industry in Canada-and since Weldwood of Canada has just announced the lay-off of another 1,600 plywood workers in Vancouver, will the Minister of Finance tell us what plans he has to reduce the interest rate and put these people back to work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must have been pleased yesterday, as I was, that there has been a slight decrease in the bank rate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dick:: Take all the credit, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that a number of commercial banks took that as the basis for reductions in their prime rates. 1 believe that is a move in the right direction, if it is possible, over time, to reduce inflationary expectations, that is the best hope that all of us can have in the expectation of lower interest rates.
[DOT] (U40)


EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS TO LAID OFF FOREST AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
Sidney James Parker: That is not much of a solace to workers who are unemployed, Madam Speaker.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. What does the minister plan to do to get these workers back to work? Second, is the minister prepared to extend unemployment insurance benefits to the unemployed workers in the forest and construction industries? In the minister's absence, could the Prime Minister speak on his behalf?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that this is not necessarily a supplementary question. I will take it as notice and on the minister's return from the OCDE meeting on the status of women, I will convey to him the comments of the hon. member.

April 18, 1980
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister aware of the discussions and proposals presently taking place in the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee concerning the future of the Canada-U.S. fisheries agreement and, if so, is he concerned over the direction they seem to be taking?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, if the former secretary of state will give me a chance to answer, let me say that a year ago, after prolonged and difficult negotiations, we and the American administration-


Some hon. Members:: Author.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am sure that my predecessor knows of the seriousness of this question and the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: We reached a difficult-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They don't want to know the truth.


Roméo LeBlanc: After a year of negotiation, we reached a difficult and balanced agreement. Three things have astonished me-as, I am sure, they have astonished those members in the opposition and on the government side who know something about fisheries-since the signature took place: first, it took 12 months for the U.S. Senate to consider the agreement; second, in the interval the United States fleet has carried out an uncontrolled scallop fishery, changing the conditions and balances prevailing at the time of the agreement; third, when the Senate finally got down to considering the agreement, some senators put forward a number of amendments which even the spokesmen for the U.S. government declared to be unnegotiable and unacceptable.
Next week, Secretary Vance will be in Ottawa and 1 hope he will be in a position to indicate that the U.S. government intends to solve this serious problem.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Could the minister shorten his reply? [English]


Roméo LeBlanc: If this is the best that the United States has to offer to settle this long-standing dispute, from this side of the House and, I am sure, from the side of my predecessor, that is just not good enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I will preface my question to the Prime Minister with the observation that the United States might be more agreeable in working with Canada on questions of the kind to which the Minister of Fisheries has referred if there were more co-operation on important question of principle in foreign policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Prime Minister relates directly to that and to the Olympic boycott. We know one reason of the Government of Canada for the refusal to take a position on the Olympic boycott is that the Prime Minister wants to count heads in the world before he takes a position of principle for Canada.
1 would like to ask the Prime Minister this: Apart from this business of counting heads before we know where Canada stands, what are the other factors that are causing the Government of Canada to delay standing up, as 57 other nations representing a variety of races, a variety of continents and a variety of conditions, have been prepared to stand up and oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What more does it take before this government takes some action on behalf of a principle?
Right Hon. P. E Trudeau (Prime Minister): The right hon. Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that agreement with the United States on the Olympics would in some way resolve the fisheries dispute.


An hon. Member:: It wouldn't hurt.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An hon. member says it would not hurt. The question remains, then, why-since the former prime minister very docilely adopted the same attitude on the same date as the United States-the fisheries dispute is going on. Obviously, saying exactly the same thing as the United States did not help his government to have this fisheries agreement sanctioned by the Congress.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am answering the remarks of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. If hon. gentlemen on that side are not interested in hearing comments on their own leader's remarks, I wonder why they have taken him for their leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have resigned, Pierre; you are not even here.


An hon. Member:: You are the ghost prime minister.
April 18, 1980


An hon. Member:: Shadow.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the second part of the question on counting heads, Madam Speaker, I have made the government's position known repeatedly in that respect. It is that we must impress on the Soviet Union that we are not divided on the question of the invasion of Afghanistan. My concern is not, principally, to add one or two countries to the list of those that have already taken one or another position; my concern is to make sure that an increasing number of countries stand together-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as they did on January 14 at the United Nations, and that is what we are working at.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister knows, from public statements made by Senator Church and Secretary Vance, that there was progress on the fisheries agreement, at least at that time, when the United States knew where Canada stood on questions of foreign policy interest.
My question is directed to the minister responsible for sport, who was quoted as having said the other day-if 1 can get his attention; I see I have it now-that certain events have made the chances of a boycott greater on the part of the Government of Canada.
Will the minister responsible for amateur sport tell us what those factors are which have made the chances of a boycott by this government greater-which has changed the policy of Canada? It is not a question of our joining other nations. This Prime Minister and this government have taken Canada away from a position of principle in support of other nations which want a boycott; that is what has happened. Will the minister of sport tell us what the other factors are that led him to make the statement attributed to him in the newspapers the other day, that the chances of a boycott are greater?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for his question. I want to remind him of the fact that our Prime Minister indicated as early as several months ago that for a boycott to be a worth-while sacrifice to ask of our athletes, it must be meaningful, de facto, and widespread. 1 do not believe that we are interested, as Canadians, in playing "The First" game.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I think we are interested in whether an effective message can be conveyed to the Russian people and to the Third World, through the television coverage of the Olympics, that a vast number of countries are standing together and athletes across the world are prepared to make the sacrifice to show how strong is our disapproval of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Ora! Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Beyond the consideration that has been pointed out, that of the number of countries which may decide to act together in such a boycott, is the question of whether the athletic organizations which have the final say in free countries will accept the invitation to go, or decide to abide by the decision of their governments.
I ask the right hon. gentleman to consider whether anything could be more harmful to our desire to show the Russian people what is wrong about their invasion of Afghanistan than a large number of countries deciding to boycott, yet the athletic organizations nevertheless having their athletes there. Surely, then, the Russians would say-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on the question of the Olympic boycott, the only particular in which this government has been first is that it was the first to back away from our friends after a position of principle had been taken in defence of democratic values.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister of sport has given a rather long response, but in the course of his long response he forgot the question. The question was, what factors led him to suggest that there is not a greater chance of a boycott being adopted by the Government of Canada? What are those factors?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his patience in view of the fact that perhaps I did not directly answer the question. I am rather new to this forum, and perhaps I will catch on. I find, as a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, that there is more hooting and hollering and lack of politeness than I was accustomed to in another forum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say to the right hon. gentleman, through you, Madam Speaker, that if it is my personal feeling that there is a greater chance that our decision may have to be made in that direction, when it is made, it is perhaps because of the fact that there seems to be, across the western world, an increasing willingness on the part of athletic organizations to go along with the decisions of their governments in that regard; and because according to the reports about which I have been informed, it appears that there may be some movement among additional countries in the general direction of a boycott.


An hon. Member:: Take a stand, then.

April 18, 1980
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS


RECOMMENDATIONS ON POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, The recently released report of the special representative for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories, which argues in favour of maintaining the status quo-which report has been categorically rejected by the majority of northerners-also makes certain recommendations regarding political development of the north.
Will the minister assure the House that these recommendations will not be accepted without a fundamental position being taken on division of the Northwest Territories?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for notice of his question. I cannot give him that specific assurance, but I can tell him that the government will seek the fullest consultation with reference to all the people of the north and the feelings they have in respect of the recommendations in the report.
I might say that many recommendations and feelings of the various groups in the north are coming to us now, and we are studying them very closely. As I mentioned to the hon. member yesterday, I would hope that this consultation process can take place so that we can develop some type of joint response to many of the recommendations in the report which may be beneficial to all concerned. Certainly, before the government makes firm decisions we will endeavour to take all views into account.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the imminence of the decision that will be made on the Chrysler negotiations- which I believe is expected some time toward the end of this month-will the minister please bring the House up to date on the status of the negotiations and confirm the question of timing?
In addition, will he state whether any agreement in principle has been made between the government and Chrysler Canada, and whether the government considers that the statements made by himself and the Prime Minister during the course of the election campaign constitute an agreement in principle, or a feeling in principle, toward providing assistance to Chrysler Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the statements made by the Prime Minister and myself during the election campaign govern very
much our approach to dealing with this matter which is very important to the Canadian economy and the jobs of thousands of Canadians.
1 have been negotiating directly, and through my officials, with the executives of Chrysler Canada and the parent company. I think we have made considerable progress. We are not yet at a point when the government itself can announce a decision on this important matter. However, we are very much aware that the situation in the United States is such that it may well be necessary for us to make and announce a decision before too many more weeks go by.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the statements made by the Ford Motor Company on lay-offs and the closure of their plant at Windsor, and the fact that they have lost $1 billion in the North American operation-which is something of the same order of magnitude as the losses of Chrysler Canada-what implications does this have for the negotiations the government is having with Chrysler? What impact will that have on the possible aid package the government is considering for Chrysler Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, these are two quite separate matters. But I would say-expressing my own view-that the Ford situation certainly will be useful to us in working out the terms and conditions-I think this is the government's view as well-of our eventual decision in respect of any Chrysler aid package.


FINANCE
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who I think is attending the meetings of the IMF next week.
Considering that in the past the International Monetary Fund has made excessively stringent decisions in relation to Third World countries and, recently, particularly with regard to Jamaica, will the minister assure the House that at the IMF meetings he, on behalf of the Canadian government, will urge the IMF to show a more demonstrable concern for Third World countries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I look forward to attending the meeting next week, because it will be the first opportunity I have had to deal directly with some of the problems which I faced earlier as co-chairman of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development which dealt basically with that set of questions which will now be before the IMF and, presumably, before the summit leaders later this spring.
April 18, 1980

1 have not made any specific commitments or conclusions on these points, but I assure my hon. friend that 1 will attempt to take as sympathetic an attitude as 1 attempted to enjoin upon others in my former role.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I am very glad that the minister is going to show sympathetic concern, and I do believe him when he says he will. But, specifically, with Jamaica having such vast difficulties right now in renegotiating the rescheduling of its debts, will the minister give particular concern to Prime Minister Manley's current problems at the IMF?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has considerable interest in Jamaica, not only through membership in the Commonwealth but through economic interests. He also knows that we have helped Jamaica from time to time in the past. I regret that Jamaica did cut off its negotiations with the IMF, which is the organization that is best equipped to assist in balance of payment problems. Nevertheless, that will not preclude us from maintaining a continuing interest in the economic future of that country.


AID TO SYDNEY STEEL AND MICHELIN TIRE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance what specific measures have been taken since this government took office to expedite two matters of great concern to Nova Scotia? They are the matters of aid to Sydney Steel Corporation and the expansion of Michelin Tire.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, those matters are being seriously considered at the moment by the ministry. The minister will be in a position to make an announcement shortly.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) leaves the House, I would like to raise a point of order with respect to his announcement this morning of what he described as the formation of six parliamentary task forces in the areas of the economy, social affairs and foreign policy. I watched on television the announcement that he made in the course of his press conference.
The Prime Minister indicated that the government House leader or someone had consulted us on the matter. 1 want to make it clear to the Prime Minister so that the record will be straight that we were not consulted in the sense that I under-
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
stand the word "consultation", although I was alerted by my friend yesterday as he and I were leaving the chamber that the Prime Minister would be making an announcement on a task force of some kind. There was no decision and no indication that the chairman would be appointed by the government, that the task force would appear to be responsible to a minister of the Crown rather than to Parliament. There was no indication at all as to what the membership on these task forces would be.
I thought that I should correct the record with respect to that matter of consultation. If members will read the announcements, there is a real question, and something that should be of concern to the House, as to how these task forces can be legitimately called parliamentary task forces. The only way 1 can see they can be called parliamentary in any sense of the word at all is that there is an indication that members of Parliament will be invited to serve on these task forces. I am sure that even the Prime Minister will agree that parliamentary committees, task forces, or whatever label one wishes to put on them, carry with them certain rather heavy obligations on the members.
There is a system in place to protect the members and the rights of members. For instance, fundamentally, will the minutes of the meetings of these task forces and the evidence which is given before them be recorded and will it be made public without some reference to a minister of the Crown? That is a parliamentary protection that we have, that Parliament is not subservient to the minister. To whom will these task forces be reporting? If they are reporting to Parliament, that is one thing; but what does "the responsible minister" mean, and what does it mean when it said that the Prime Minister wants advice from the task forces? Is this to be secret advice? Are members of all the parties to be co-opted to the ministry with respect to the advice?
Is there a right, for instance, for there to be a minority report from the task force, as there is right now? Are we to have the opportunity as parliamentarians to debate the efficacy of the subject matters that are set forth? Those subject matters are quite different, except in one case, from the subject matter that we had brought forward and, as well, there was a parliamentary debate in that respect. Will we have that opportunity?
Another question is, will there be a term of reference submitted for debate? There has been no discussion with respect to that matter. And what about the reports? Will they be tabled in the House? Will these task forces be reported in the usual sense so that we may have an opportunity to debate the reports? Before any matter is dealt with regarding these task forces, these are all questions which ought to be dealt with in consultation.
As I see the situation, we are departing in a great way from what is a traditional parliamentary practice with traditional parliamentary rules to safeguard and protect, not only the rights of members of Parliament, but the rights of the public in terms of the information that the public will receive from these reports.
166

April 18, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
Some time during the course of the question period or just prior to it there appeared on the desk of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) what purports to be a term of reference of some kind for some form of committee on disabled persons, a copy of which the hon. member delivered to me. I do not know where this document came from. No one has consulted us about the form of it, which is contrary to the usual parliamentary courtesy.
The document covers a number of areas and purports to be in the form of the normal term of reference that would be approved by the House of Commons. It says in part:
That the task force will submit reports from time to time, as appropriate, with a final report to be submitted by October 31, 1980-
It does not say to whom those reports will go, whether it be a minister of the Crown, Parliament or whatever. It purports to give this ad hoc committee the power to send for persons, papers and records. That is a power which comes out of the rules of the House of Commons. It does not come out of the air and certainly it does not come out of this piece of paper. It cannot come out of the mouth of the Prime Minister, however well intentioned it may be.
There was a House leaders' meeting on Wednesday, and we could have been consulted at that time. Rather than have the matter come up in an amicable discussion between House leaders while leaving the House, rather than suddenly having terms of references appear-for which apparently there will be no opportunity to debate-and rather than following this peremptory approach to Parliament by making the announcement of the formation of the task forces, it is advisable that some form of consultation take place.
There is also the matter of choosing the chairman. I always thought that it was the right of Parliament to choose parliamentary committee chairmen. Rather than choosing the chairman peremptorily, the Prime Minister might have been better advised if he had arranged to have the consultations in the formal manner. Perhaps he did and those consultations did not take place, I do not know. In any event, it does present Parliament, the government and certainly the opposition with a dilemma with respect to this announcement which was made this morning. It is a dilemma that will have to be resolved one way or another with regard to what is the normal parliamentary practice. Because of the importance of this matter to our institution and to the safeguards for Parliament and the public, I felt that I should raise the matter. I knew of no other way to raise it than by point of order, Madam Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 understand the concern of the House leader of the Conservative party and I think that he quite properly raised the matter by way of a point of order. I accept the hon. member's distinction between "informing" and "consultation".
The sequence of events is as follows. Yesterday in cabinet the government agreed to the setting up of these task forces. Therefore, there could not have been prior consultation. The government House leader quite correctly informed the other House leaders that there would be an announcement. Obviously, now that it has been announced, consultations will follow, and we will attempt to respond to all the questions raised by the hon. gentleman.
Of course, the simplest answer of all is that we were attempting to take a leaf out of the book of the Conservative party. We thought that they were quite correct in establishing not parliamentary committees as such, but task forces to inform the government. They themselves in their period of government set up three task forces to my knowledge without any consultation with my party, certainly not with myself. There were three of them, one on grain transportation, one on rail line abandonment and one on beef import legislation.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the question of these task forces was discussed in this House last November and December and that your eminent predecessor, Speaker Jerome, as he then was, ruled that task forces of this nature were fine, that they should be encouraged and they should be funded. I believe reference was made to one that our party had set up in 1974 when we were the government to look into the Millhaven incident. Speaker Jerome found fault with the initiative of the other side of the House only in that they were one party task forces, and if public funds were going to be spent he indicated in a gentle way that it would have been well if other members could have been part of that task force.
Our initiative, I repeat, is building on the Tory action of last summer. We are creating task forces. We think it right and proper that members of Parliament can and should be used to inform the government on particular subjects. Therefore, there is no disagreement between us. The only difference is that we have announced to the other parties that we hope some of their members would sit on these task forces.
That is where the matter rests at this stage. Consultation will follow, particularly on the terms of reference and the mode of action of that particular task force which will be discussed within the task force itself, to make sure that everyone is in agreement.
As to the members who would sit on that task force, we will await answers from the House leaders of the other parties to indicate if they are interested in joining some of our members and participating in some of these task forces. If they are, we will assemble them and seek agreement on the terms of reference. Terms of reference have been proposed but, of course, they can be modified if all parties can find some more proper way of conducting the study.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I should like to just carry on for a moment with this point of order. I shall not detain the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) long in the House. We are dealing really with three kinds of instruments. There were established internally during the period of our government the series of task forces that the Prime Minister has referred to and to which the Speaker found some gentle exception. Action was taken by our governement to remedy the situation.
April 18, 1980

There was also the very clear proposal by our party when in government to establish select committees of the House of Commons to look into some of the matters which are proposed here and which were announced by the Prime Minister earlier today. Those select committees would operate with all of the force and all of the safeguards of committees of the House of Commons of Canada, which is something quite different from what I gather has been proposed by the Prime Minister.
There is also a third variant to which he made reference, and that was the assignment to a subcommittee of a standing committee of the House of Commons during one of his previous incarnations as Prime Minister of a study into the question of penitentiaries. It is not clear to us exactly what is intended here.
Clearly we on this side, assuming there could be agreement on the terms of reference, would prefer that a task force so established would have all of the power of a parliamentary select committee. We believe that provides the best protection both for individual members of Parliament and for the public. It means that a minister such as, say, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), if she received a report on the handicapped that she did not personally like, would not be in a position to hide that report. As we understand what is being proposed now, the minister has the power to hide a report that she does not like. We think that is a power which could very easily be abused and could seriously erode or undermine the parliamentary system.
It would be very helpful to us, therefore, to know exactly what is being proposed here. Our preference would be for select committees of the House of Commons. We naturally would want to have the opportunity for full discussion of the terms of reference to ensure that the ambit of inquiry was broad enough to allow members of Parliament and the interested public to have the fullest possible productive participation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I first of all confirm what I think has now been made clear, namely, that although we were informed yesterday that this announcement was going to be made this morning, we were not consulted or asked for our consent or approval. As a matter of fact, 1 suggested that the announcement should be made in the House rather than at a press conference, but that position was not accepted. Now that the idea is out in the public arena, however, we welcome the suggestion that there will be consultation before any further action is taken.
I want to support wholeheartedly the position taken by both the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) that these tasks forces must be parliamentary committees. Maybe they will have to be set up as special committees or what have you, but certainly we as members of opposition parties do not want to find ourselves simply co-opted by ministers of the government and made servants of them for whatever their purposes may be. We think the idea of a special task force on special subjects-which after all is another way of saying a special committee study-is a good one, but we want it kept in its
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
parliamentary context. When there are consultations among the House leaders about these task forces, that will certainly be our position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that his government had done both-had set up select committees and task forces. In the case of the Millhaven incident in 1974, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) reminds me that indeed it was a task force. I believe the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) sat on that one.
The Leader of the Opposition is confusing that task force with a subcommittee of the parliamentary committee chaired by the then member for Windsor-Walkerville, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). But there was a task force. We had set one up and the hon. Leader of the Opposition set some up.
He is now saying, if I understand him, that he would prefer to have select committees to task forces. Madam Speaker, his government showed that you can have both; our government shows that you can have both and we are proposing today to announce our desire to set up these task forces. We hope we will have co-operation from the other parties. If they do not want to hear of task forces in the future, although they did in the past, we will see what can be done.
Out intention is to involve members from all parties in a task force, as was done in 1974, to have all parties come together to give advice to the government of the day and, hopefully, to parliament on a specific situation, as was done in the case of Millhaven.
We are in the hands of the opposition parties. If they do not want to sit on task forces, in view of Speaker Jerome's ruling we probably would not presume to proceed with the creation of such task forces in such circumstances as were regretted by Speaker Jerome because of the unilateral manner in which it had been done by the Leader of the Opposition. We will discuss the formation of these task forces and I hope it will be possible to set them up, Madam Speaker. Members on every side of the House have frequently regretted that Parliament was being ignored, that members were not present enough at the formation of policies and that they should be involved in some way in the establishment of those policies. That is our aim.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, one very brief question for clarification. Is the Prime Minister also prepared to discuss with parties on this side the establishment of select committees for the same purpose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, certainly I would hope that the House leaders of all parties would discuss, when needed, setting up such select committees.
1 think we felt when we were in the opposition that the government had perhaps overdone this a little bit in setting up that many and that Parliament could not easily manage

April 18, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
regular standing committees, select committees and task forces. Maybe there will be an inclination to set up less of them, but we have not at all rejected the idea of select committees as provided for under the rules of the House.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like just a brief word on this important subject because I was closely involved in the breakthrough which occurred last fall. I believe this was a breakthrough that was regarded by all members sitting in Parliament at the time as one which would allow private members of Parliament to have a direct input in developing policy at long last.
As I recall, the then opposition House leader, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), was concerned that the proper parliamentary procedures be observed in establishing, in particular, the special select committee dealing with the subject of rehabilitation services. In fact, there was such a long delay in making sure that the parliamentary niceties would be observed that our committee did not really have final approval until November 29.
We are all aware, at least those of us who have been in the House of Commons for a number of years, that there has been a gradual erosion of the rights of private members of Parliament. The hope has always been that the committee system would remedy some of this intrusion of the executive. In most instances 1 think hon. members will agree that even the committee system unfortunately has become a creature of the government. But here in the special select committees was a breakthrough which gave for the first time parliamentarians- private members of Parliament-the right to deal with areas of urgent concern and to bring in recommendations through the regular parliamentary process.
I might add that I was the member of Parliament who had the privilege of leading off in the debate on November 29 that established finally the special select committee of Parliament. The then House leader for the opposition, now the Minister of Finance, objected to the fact that I was the lead-off speaker. I am sure hon. members will recall that debate and the then government House leader, now the opposition House leader, explained in quite explicit terms that it was a gesture that indicated that at long last private members of Parliament were going to have an important role to play in select committees. In particular, they were going to be dissociated from the influence of ministers of the Crown.
In summing up his statement at that time, the then House leader of the opposition stated this at page 1837 of Hansard for November 29:
I do not wish to embarrass any further the hon. member, who has a deep interest in this subject, but I would like to advise the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) that it is a precedent which, I suggest, should have a very short life.
I hope that as consultations proceed on this important subject we can use the same quotation, that a task force directly responsible to a minister is a precedent which will have a very short life, and that we will return to the structure which was a real breakthrough in allowing private members to
participate independently through the select committee procedure.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has left. I know he can read and I hope this will be drawn to his attention.
The Prime Minister indicated that he was approachable by other House leaders on the nature and kind of committees and whether or not there should be any. 1 have not seen the complete list. However, I was very interested during the last Parliament in the contemplated select committee on nuclear power and nuclear proliferation. There was mention of that very serious matter, not only for world peace but also for human survival, in the throne speech.
Therefore, 1 want to ask whether or not the Prime Minister or the government would be approachable on some other kinds of additions in terms of the subjects being addressed in these select committees. Perhaps that matter can be drawn to the Prime Minister's attention and an answer can be given in some other way at some other time.
[Translation\


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the last two members who expressed their preference for select committees I simply wan! to draw to to their attention the fact that according to Standing Order 65 there are already 20 standing committees of the House of Commons. In the past we have found it most difficult to interest more than a third of the members in actively participating in the deliberations of the standing committees of the House. 1 wonder if it is wise and advisable to plan the creation of select committees at this time before it can be demonstrated that with the already existing committees it is not possible to make the system work properly.
Still I find their suggestion interesting because it conveys to some extent the idea of a change. But, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned this morning, it is an original idea to which, surprisingly enough, the Progressive Conservative Party had already given some thought since they themselves had considered setting up task forces. So all we want is to allow backbenchers an opportunity to participate more directly in the decision-making process. That is a form of participation that we want and that we suggest to the official opposition party. If members opposite prefer the striking of a select committee, that could be included in new discussions on a more general parliamentary reform. I remember quite well that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) sat as I did on a committee on procedure and organization in 1975 and 1976. We got a very interesting report on committees that had been prepared by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is now in the House, and that contained all interesting ideas. But there were never any concrete results about that parliamentary reform so desired and so desirable, Madam Speaker.
April 18, 1980

So the action we are taking today is that intention which has been expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada to give members from all regions of Canada and particularly from western Canada a chance to participate in those committees he described this morning in replying to the right, hon. Leader of the Opposition, who is here, and to the House leader of the official opposition. That is our approach on that matter. We believe it would not be wise for the moment to add committees of the House to the twenty or so that already exist in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 65. Now an invitation has been made to members from both sides of the House to participate. 1 am sure that the right hon. Prime Minister will not prevent backbenchers from working in a constructive way on matters of national interest. 1 am certain of it, and I am also assured of it by the House leader of the New Democratic Party.
That is all we are aiming for. We want to make members work, we want to get them more interested, we want to enhance their role. That is a first step in parliamentary reform, and I wonder why reactions are not negative. Questions asked will be the topic of negotiations between the House leaders, as required. Yesterday, I acted merely out of courtesy. I advised my colleagues that the right hon. Prime Minister was going to make an announcement. That is all I was supposed to do. We are open to any positive suggestion for improving the efficiency of the task forces. We are counting on the participation of Progressive Conservative members as well as of the NDP. As for the proposed select committees as such, I respectfully submit that this could be the topic, in the near future, of a study on parliamentary reform.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 just want to say I am very happy to note that the government House leader has indicated that all aspects of this question will be subject to negotiations, because I think that is quite important. That is the kind of assurance my friend and I want and 1 thank him for giving us that assurance.
[ Translation]


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, since we are given the opportunity to discuss this matter briefly, I should like to add just one more point to what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has said. I would co-operate with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of his party in the House in setting up those task forces for one simple reason. I do not think we should discuss those task forces as such as select committees of the House for one reason only.
1 therefore urge them to co-operate because, whether we want to or not, a parliamentary body such as a select committee can in some cases be active and positive, especially in those cases where it is asked to play an inquisitorial role. But often political opposition in the House of Commons can make itself
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
felt through a select committee, which is not to say that this is necessarily a bad thing. However, I do think a task force set up by order in council can be a mechanism that is more positive and efficient than a select committee of the House. But that need not mean that we will not have select committees. But I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, however, not to make co-operation on task forces conditional upon whether or not we have select committees. In some cases, I would agree with that. What I liked about his proposal last year was that in some cases task forces could make more positive studies because, despite the philosophical differences reflected in task forces, chances are they might be less imbued with party politics. As for me, 1 have agreed to be a member of a task force and 1 have invited a member of his party to become involved in it, because I feel he could study the matter very well.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I raise a question of privilege on a subject today that I find very difficult because it has racial connotations to it. That therefore makes it very difficult. It concerns a statement made by a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, Mr. Dennis Ham who, with another member who up until a few weeks ago was leader of the opposition and leader of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan, Mr. Dick Collver, left their party to sit as independents to advocate the separation of the west from Canada and the joining of the west with the United States.

Madam Speaker, I have here an article that made headlines in Le Journal de Montreal on April 17, 1980, and which I should like to quote:
If the hostages in Tehran were Quebeckers, they would say:
That is, people from western Canada.
"Leave them there".
A member from western Canada



1 will repeat that in English. If the hostages in Tehran were Quebeckers, they would say in western Canada "Leave them there".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A member from western Canada.

April 18, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom

But, Madam Speaker, as I said, it is not with pride that I rise on a question of privilege this morning, but an article datelined Regina from the Canadian Press says, and I quote:
If 50 French Canadians were held hostages in Tehran instead of 50 Americans, the majority of western Canadians would say, "Leave them there".
That is at least what the independent MLA for Swift Current, Mr. Dennis Ham. claimed during a conference at the Saskatchewan Press Club on Tuesday.
Mr. Ham, who has already been campaigning for some time for the secession of western Canada and its incorporation into an American state, is also predicting an uprising in Quebec.
Madam Speaker, Mr. Ham, a Saskatchewan MLA, like all other Canadians, has a right to express his opinion freely, but that opinion does not reflect at all the opinion of the people in my province of western Canada.
Unfortunately, as you know, a minority in western Canada does not understand the meaning of the aspirations of Quebeckers. But Mr. Ham's words do not reflect the opinion of that minority, let alone of the majority of the people in my province in western Canada. Mr. Ham's words were an insult to Quebeckers, to the Canadians from Saskatchewan, from western Canada and all Canadians.

Reflecting back to the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this House three days ago when he said that we in this House represent all of the people of Canada, as a representative of my province and my constituency I feel that a statement of this sort, made by an elected member who has as his colleague a highly respected member, distorts badly in this time in Canada the sentiments of a number of people in western Canada. Because of that, I feel it is an infringement upon my work and my ability to speak accurately for the people of western Canada, as this gentleman does not in any way whatsoever represent the feelings of people in western Canada. 1 have never found anyone who would like to have the American hostages replaced by hostages from Quebec and who would then say "Leave them there".
I want to take this opportunity to dissociate myself and the members of my party, especially those from western Canada, from the statements made by that member of the Saskatchewan legislature. I am sure the same is true of western members of the Conservative party and the Liberal party as well. If you in any way see this as a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, 1 would be prepared to move a motion that we refer this statement and articles of this sort to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and elaboration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, briefly on the question of privilege, I doubt very much that this is a question of privilege for a House like ours. I am sure the hon. member had his own reasons to raise this issue and quote that article in the House of Commons, and I
do not want to elaborate on his motivations or his reasons. But I, as a member from western Canada, along with my colleagues, want to take this opportunity to join with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) in the position he took, namely, that the statement attributed to Mr. Ham does not represent at all the opinion of the people in western Canada. The basic thing that should be pointed out here today is that the House of Commons is not powered to restrict the freedom of speech of members, private citizens and even of members of another House in another jurisdiction. But for us, as individuals, and myself as leader of a party with a large support in western Canada, this is an opportunity to reject outright the views that were quoted and attributed to Mr. Ham.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, 1 must add some comments to those of my colleague from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). As my colleague and the Leader of the Opposition said, no one would contemplate limiting the right of any individual to express his opinion. But when that individual expresses an opinion and claims or infers that his opinion is held by most people in western Canada, then that is an insult to most western Canadians.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It does, I believe, infringe on the privileges of members of Parliament, particularly on those from western Canada, when that kind of allegation is made so all-inclusively, asserting that some sort of general feeling, attitude or state of mind or piece of insanity is held by western Canadian people.
I want to say to you, Madam Speaker, and to my French Canadian compatriots that the French fact in all parts of Canada is what has made the major difference between our country and most, if not all, of the other countries, and particularly the difference between our country and the United States. The French fact in all parts of Canada has made us an example to the world of how peoples of different cultures can live together in peace and work together to solve differences, some of which go back decades and decades, to make our country stronger, freer, and, what is most important, more sovereign and independent.
It is not new that there have been a few people not only in western Canada but in all parts of Canada who from time to time over the last 200 years have held such views as this, but invariably those few who held such views were the kooks, flukes, flakes, freaks and right-wing reactionaries who are an infinitesimal minority of insanity. It is not just peculiar to a handful of western Canadians; it is peculiar among a handful of people in different parts of this country.
I say to my French Canadian compatriots that the opposite is the case. The great majority of western Canadians feel the opposite; they respect you and your contribution to our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
A:,
it
Wm
April 18, 1980

We, the great majority of us, the overwhelming majority of us, will work with you to keep this country sovereign and independent and freer and better, and we shall do it as an example to the rest of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, as a member of the House of Commons from the province of Saskatchewan, I should like to add my voice to the voices of my leader, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). 1 should like to repudiate the statements which were supposedly made on behalf of western Canadians by Mr. Ham, as quoted by the hon. member.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville mentioned that these two gentlemen had been associated with the Progressive Conservative party of Saskatchewan. That is correct; they had been associated. They have since been repudiated by their constituency associations in the province of Saskatchewan-in the constituency of Nipawin in the case of Mr. Collver and in the constituency of Swift Current in the case of Mr. Ham.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They no longer have any ties or any connection with the Progressive Conservative Party in Saskatchewan or, for that matter with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I suggested yesterday that there are feelings in western Canada, as there are feelings in the rest of Canada, that we are not all being treated equally. But the feelings expressed by those two members are not the majority feelings in western Canada, as they are not, 1 hope, the majority feelings of the people in Quebec who are trying to break our country apart. We will stand with our fellow Canadians from Quebec and our fellow Canadians in the rest of this country to try to make Canada a better country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I simply wish to commend the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) for raising that question of privilege.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, when I gave the clipping to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) yesterday, I did not expect him of course to raise the matter in this House. 1 would like to thank him most sincerely.
Madam Speaker, I have had many opportunities to travel across this country and I know that sometimes in some areas, including western Canada, certain government policies or programs were not accepted, but never did Canadian citizens in those provinces show any lack of concern for human tragedies such as the hostages in Tehran. 1 commend the opposition members, both New Democrats and Conservatives, for putting
Old Age Security Act
the record straight, and I am confident that on this side of the House, we appreciate that enormously in this most difficult period we are going through in Quebec, in view of the efforts we have to make to convince French-speaking Canadians that Canada is still for every one of us the land of the future.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, being the only member from Quebec who has been here 18 years, which makes me the senior representative of this province, I would like to thank particularly the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) as well as the other members and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for what they said about these comments undermining the honour and the attachment of Quebeckers towards the rest of Canada.
I would like to tell the hon. member that in the last 18 years we have heard a few such insinuations from both sides. However, I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who have been here longer than I have, would recognize that a lot of progress has been made during these 18 years and that this House is perhaps one of the instruments which has contributed considerably to a better understanding and a rapprochement of all Canadians. I believe that the testimonial given by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville this morning, who was strongly supported by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), shows that westerners have a lot of affection for Quebeckers and Canada as a whole and 1 am sure that the comments made this morning will be greatly appreciated by all Quebeckers of good will who want more understanding, solidarity and friendship among all Canadians, whatever their origins or language.


Madam Speaker:: The question raised by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was certainly timely and it was greeted appropriately by members on both sides of the House. If I may judge by the applause that we heard, I can conclude that such statements are certainly offensive both for Quebeckers and for westerners. However, this comment was made outside the House and attacks a group rather than one member in particular. I therefore believe that 1 cannot find any grounds for a question of privilege, but I still wish to thank the hon. member for his intervention which was so well received by both sides of the House.

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Thomson



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-16, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 17, 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) (p. 31).
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, at the time the House adjourned last evening I was addressing my remarks to the frustrations of my constituents in Calgary South with respect to the federal government. 1 would like to say at this time that those frustrations in no way reflect the sentiment which was expressed in the newspaper article which was just described.
In my remarks I was dealing with the question of oil pricing and, in particular, I had commenced to talk about OPEC oil prices. I think that many Canadians believe that OPEC oil prices are still determined by a cartel and that these prices bear no relationship to fair market value. This was certainly the case in 1973 when the supplies of oil from OPEC countries far exceeded the demand for their oil. This has not been the case since 1978. As Sheik Yamani said several weeks ago, OPEC has lost control of price levels. In the years 1978 and 1979 the demand for OPEC oil far exceeded the supply. There is no longer a uniform OPEC price. Each OPEC country, other than Saudi Arabia, is charging whatever the market will bear.
Surely at the very least Canadians should be prepared to pay a price for domestic oil which is equivalent to the cost of developing alternative forms of energy. Failure to recognize this as a fair value for domestic oil is to put our heads in the sand in terms of achieving energy self-sufficiency.
In his speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that "Prime Minister Clark was not successful in reconciling the views of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta on energy pricing". That is not the case. Our government did reach an agreement on energy pricing with all of the provinces in Canada. While neither Ontario nor Alberta were happy, the
fact of the matter is that an agreement was reached. There was a meeting of the minds and that, in my view, is a definition of an agreement.
The founding Fathers of Confederation wrote into the constitution that it was the right of the national government to uphold the national interest, even in areas of provincial jurisdiction, if such jurisdiction was being exercised in a way which was contrary to the national interest. There can be no question that the wealthier provinces of Canada must share with the less fortunate provinces, but the question is, what do we mean by share? How far does sharing go? Does it mean that one particular province should be compelled to sell its resources on a different value basis than the other provinces sell their resources? Surely this was not the intent of the Fathers of Confederation.
There is no dispute by the people of Alberta that every citizen of Canada should enjoy equality of opportunity, no matter in what part of the country he or she chooses to live. Certainly the Alberta government is not discriminating against equality of opportunity; far from it. So many people are flocking to Alberta because of the very existence of equality of opportunity.
The west must have the opportunity to develop its own economic and social objectives within the Canadian framework. That is all we want. All the west is asking for is that opportunity to develop its own social and economic objectives within the context of confederation. This is no less true for the Atlantic provinces, Quebec or any of the other provinces.
Certainly Canada needs a strong central government, but that strength must come from a feeling of togetherness that is freely given and not given under duress. In my view, national unity is not something that can be dictated by a central government. National unity must evolve from a sense of participation within confederation, and again all the west is seeking is an opportunity to participate in confederation and not be ignored or neglected.
I personally have always seen Canada as a country trying to find itself. There has not been an urgent need for the heavy hand of a central government to pull the country together and to create for us a national identity.
I believe that Canadians could knit themselves together to find a national identity for themselves. I say in all honesty that I have many misgivings about changes to our existing constitution. For all its imperfections it has given Canadians individual freedom, civil liberties and one of the highest standards of living in the world. At the same time, I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that if we are to hold Canada together, there has to be a change in the constitution which would permit the regions of our country to achieve the diverse objectives which fulfil regional aspirations.
I do not believe that we can continue to cling to the concept that the federal government must control all economic, social, cultural, language and communication policies in Canada. Nor do I believe that Canada can or should try to become uniform with respect to these policies. More importantly, I do not

April 18, 1980

believe that the federal government can succeed in promoting national unity by enforcing a constitutional solution with respect to these policies.
Mr. Speaker, Albertans are ready and willing for constitutional change but, more importantly, they are crying out for eastern Canada to recognize them as full partners in confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 will call it one o'clock, if I may. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the unity of our country, I think the real question should be whether Canadians want at all costs to open their hearts and minds in order to ensure the survival of a country where Francophones and Anglophones will live together as equals and brothers or whether they prefer to turn over a new leaf in our history books and live as two sovereign and independent nations in a land called Canada.
Everything else is nothing but discussion and quibble between legal experts, constitutional lawyers or economists.
Personally, I have made up my mind and 1 want to live in a mature, fraternal, dignified and equal partnership together with all those who were the builders and the beneficiaries of this country. If by misfortune my wager based as much on my openness as on others' generosity should fall through, then, and only then, would I extol the value of a closed society.
By the way, this is the fundamental difference between my option and that of the Pequistes who have decided to close their hearts to others before trying to find out what lies in other people's hearts. You may have noticed that their rationalization is always different. For instance, a PQ supporter will tell you that he took his stand because Quebeckers pay more taxes out to Ottawa than Ottawa spends in Quebec. But if you point out to him that this is a misrepresentation and that Mr. Parizeau himself has admitted that over the last few years the federal government has spent many more billions of dollars in Quebec than that province has paid out in taxes, he still will not change his mind.
The Address-Mr. De Bane
Could it be that the present system is too inflexible and that that rigidity is the basis of his attitude? Not so. We could be reminded that Pequiste sovereignty-association was founded when Mr. Pearson was Prime Minister of Canada, a period when federalism, as Mr. Parizeau has himself recognized, has been of unprecedented flexibility. Could it be then that our system is over-centralistic? Of course not because when you remind him that out of each tax dollar paid to the federal government, the federal government retains only 32 cents and the remaining 68 cents go back to the provincial and municipal governments, he still will not be persuaded. So it is not because our system is too centralistic. May that man have endorsed the PQ philosophy because federal policies relating to Quebec are ill-conceived and ineffective? Not so. Once again this is only a pretext because 1 have never seen a Pequiste who would be willing to abandon his option whether or not, for the sake of discussion of the federal government was willing to go along with any policies he wishes. In fact, this question was asked recently to the Quebec minister responsible for economic development, Mr. Bernard Landry, who was saying that federal policies were not to the advantage of Quebec. Reporters asked him: In the eventuality that these policies were amended as you wish, would you become a federalist? He admitted that of course he would not and that he would remain a supporter of independence.
Mr. Speaker, this shows that all the arguments used to try to explain the independence option are only a smokescreen. Basically, there are not two reasons for wanting independence, there are not three, there is only one: It is because a certain group speaks French and the others English. All the other arguments used to try to justify this option are only a smokescreen. As a matter of fact, the Parti Quebecois is now admitting that what it wants basically is to break up a relationship which exists in this country where Francophones and Anglophones together govern the largest country in the world after the Soviet Union. I therefore wonder why they want to hide the basic reason for their option and give out so . many reasons which have nothing at all to do with the 1 philosophy of their party.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the low blow dealt by Mr. Claude Morin, minister of intergovernmental affairs in Quebec, who stated recently that the only people who could suffer from the consequences of their option are those who represent Quebec in this House. In my 12 years as member of Parliament and now as minister, I never thought that a fellow Quebecker would dare make such an insidious attack against people who do not agree with him politically. Indeed, who are those people who are now preaching independence? Who are they whose administration has been stamped with incompetence? We must recall that for years they criticized their predecessors for having undertaken the James Bay project and that as soon as they were elected, they admitted

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. De Bane
what was very obvious, that this might have been the wisest decision made by the former government.
For years, they have argued that nuclear power should be developed without delay, before hydropower. Look what happened immediately after they came to office. Mr. Bernard Landry, who reminded us that there has always been a 2 per cent difference between the unemployment rate in Ontario and in Quebec, must admit today that, for the first time in history, the gap between the two provinces has systematically exceeded 3 per cent during the first three years of their administration, whereas it had always stood at 2 per cent or less during the years previous to 1976, 1977. It was 2.5 per cent in 1976, 3.3 per cent in 1977, 3.7 per cent in 1978 and still over 3 per cent in 1979. This had never been the case before they came to power.
Look at their budget. Out of $17 billion, they will be spending over $10 billion on social and education programs alone. The hon. minister Lazure himself indicated that for every patient treated in Quebec costs amount to over 30 per cent of the costs in Ontario.
In the area of education, I should like to quote a few excerpts from Mr. Parizeau's budget speech. Having recognized on page 34 that-
Quebeckers are overtaxed.
-he added on page 15 that he agreed, during the latest round of collective bargaining, to admit 1,600 more teachers within the system. He said:
In my opinion, this is the settlement's only inconsistent and stupid aspect.
He added:
Had we known at the time these offers were made what we know now about the actual cost of education, such offers would never have been made.
Here is what the minister of finance stated three and a half years after taking over the financial administration:
If I had known what I know today, I would have done that a month ago.
And on page 24, Mr. Parizeau stated-
We have even come to a point where our annual costs per student in our schools are $500 higher than in Ontario. That is nothing to be proud of.
In those two departments alone which engulf more than 50 per cent of his budget, we see what the minister himself and the minister of health are admitting. Fortunately, the department of highways does not come under federal jurisdiction because they would say, of course, that, if the highways in Quebec have become the biggest death traps in the province, the federal government is to be blamed.
But given their incompetence, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to demonstrate on the basis of their own statements-and history will bear witness to it-that the greatest harm they have done to our country has been the division that they created and fostered between Quebeckers of all origins. We shall never be overly stressing the extent of the damage they did during the
last 15 years by having our people and particularly our youth believe that federalists are not as patriotic as they are, that they do not love Quebec as much as they do, that they are themselves more patriotic, that they monopolize patriotism. And even on the day Mr. Trudeau was elected with the support of the population to govern Canada, one should remember all that they did to destroy him, and by the same token to undermine everything that we did. They have the gall to chastise us for not progressing fast enough. The most important legislation passed by all sides of this House, with the support of each and every member, from all parties, has been, of course, the Official Languages Act which, in section 2, sets French and English on an equal footing. Remember what Rene Levesque and the others had to say on that occasion.
Because they deny us the opportunity of doing our job in our country, they are trying today to win us over to their cause, drawing us within a society which, in spite of all their artifices will be nothing but a closed society. While they pretend to be of a social democratic strain, to foster division they went as far as supporting the Socreds from the very beginning until the last election. I think they are trying to hide under that ambiguity the fact that they want to enhance their national values at all costs. And of course, this ambiguity is also flagrant in the question they will be asking the people of Quebec. In the first part they say, and I quote, that they want the exclusive power to make legislation, to levy taxes, to establish external relations. This for sure amounts to independence. In the same question they want a mandate to conduct negotiations between a sovereign Quebec and Canada. But if the question specifies that both mandates are to be fulfilled as one, "at the same time", as the wording puts it, it remains true that the two are quite different in themselves. And that should be obvious to anybody.
Independence, sovereignty, separation, secession, all that can be decided among Quebeckers alone but if one can decide on his own whether he is going to divorce or get a separation, it takes two to decide upon marriage or association. Therefore nothing would be possible if on referendum day the answer is Yes to the question asked by the Levesque government, because Canada would not have been consulted about any association with a sovereign Quebec. And Mr. Levesque has given the rest of Canada, which incidentally has no reason to say Yes, all the reasons in the world to say No since he himself has stated many times that sovereignty and association cannot be dissociated.
On this planet where there are 2,500 languages and cultures but merely 160 countries, there have been many other movements toward separation and independence, but I know none which was marked from the start by ambiguousness and humiliation. To say that something that cannot be negotiated, like independence, will now be indissolubly linked to association, is a most humiliating statement, because it means that we
April 18, 1980

who are supposed to be the embodiment of pride are putting our future into the hands of someone else. I say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as bargaining power is concerned, I have seen better and that when you want to bluff, you do not start by showing your cards to your opponent.
Is it possible, anyway, to imagine that Canada would say yes? In my opinion, there is but one possibility left for such a scheme. It is the hypothesis of a ruined sovereignty, of a sovereignty on paper only, a sovereignty where we would share the same currency while being a minority as far as monetary decisions are concerned. I recall what Mr. Parizeau himself said three or four years ago: If Quebec has the same currency as a country whose economy would be stronger than its own, it would become a banana republic. This is what is offered to us; to remain in the wake of another country which would have a permanent right of veto in all economic areas.
How can anyone have the nerve to say that it is a challenging outlook on the future? Let us wonder for one moment how long an individual from Trois-Rivieres, Matane, Bois-Francs or Beauce would be willing to leave his or her fate in the hands of a man from Vancouver, Toronto or elsewhere? For how long? Is there another country in the world which gives a right of veto on its daily fate to another country? In my opinion it is the only hypothesis which would be accepted by the other country. Besides, it is not for nothing that Canada, which has very close relations with the United States, has never asked for an association because we know quite well that to the extent that we could have a right of veto on their policies they would have one on us and we would then remain in their wake. This is why I never heard of any sensible person in Canada who would dare approve such a solution.
Let us consider for a minute how much that thesis is unrealistic. Let us consider the opposite hypothesis. If the western provinces, which are now substantially richer than the rest of Canada and have a larger population than Quebec, decided tomorrow to separate, after their separation from Canada they could say to Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes: The western provinces will have one vote and Quebec 30 per cent of a vote.
And Ontario, which is even more densely populated than we are, will have 40 per cent of one vote, and the maritimes the balance. Would it be accepted? Is it possible to disregard realities and to think that through legislation Quebec, which has almost three million fewer inhabitants than Ontario, will turn tomorrow to Ontario and say, "we in Quebec, we have one vote and you Ontario, even with your greater population, you as well as the west and the maritimes will have one vote, and if you do not agree, I shall remain in Canada." What kind of ruse is this, if not an attempt to humiliate Quebeckers collectively to lead them to a dead end where we shall all be humiliated, an attempt, by insulting our people, to urge them to take a step, whereas, according to every survey, the percentage of independentists is strictly the same after twenty years?
The Address-Mr. De Bane
Mr. Speaker, on that proposition which, I think, is totally unrealistic, which is a dead end which would humiliate all of us who form the government of this country, who have just been mandated with far more support than the PQ, we ask the population to really show some self-respect and urge them to make with us a mature decision for the future, an enlightened choice that has nothing to do with wishful thinking, a courageous choice that will not confuse obliviousness and audacity, a logical choice that will not be dictated either by the economic or the cultural components. In sum, a choice rather than the failure to choose as proposed by the promoters of sovereignty-association.
It is quite ironical that if tomorrow Quebec accepted sovereignty-association, a number of policies it can now establish in total liberty would no longer be possible tomorrow. Whether it be the selective repeal of the sales tax in the fiscal field, industrial development incentives or preferential buying policies, all this can be done today but will no longer be possible tomorrow without the agreement of the other country next door, assuming that country agreed to enter into a common market.
Mr. Speaker, what is most saddening to me is that a large number of my fellow Quebeckers who are totally opposed to the independence concept feel compelled to vote Yes, if only to express our pride. I am not tempted like Camille Laurin to suggest, that I am the embodiment of Quebec's soul, quite the opposite, I feel that those who are ready to lead us all together into humiliation in order to make their point have in the back of their minds something much different than a language of pride and dignity. One thing I can tell them, they have no monopoly on the passion for Quebec. That passion we have as much as they do, and to me no scheme is more diabolical than the drawing of cheques on Quebeckers' patriotism, on that goal we all share of living in dignity.
This, Mr. Speaker reminds me of one of the most severe crises we went through, the conscription during the Second World War. One of its heroes was Andre Laurendeau. During that period where the whole world saw it as a duty to share in the defence of freedom, we believed in Quebec, everyone without exception, that we could not be on the side of liberty, participation in the war. Laurendeau who fought so hard against conscription wrote in his book, and I quote:
That crisis went deep. It moved us. It changed some of our ideas. Then it seemed to be over . . . out of common agreement we stopped referring to it, as if on either side we were not that proud of what we had done.
Of course, had I lived during that period and had I been told that it was patriotic to refuse to be used as cannon fodder for England, that it was once again a matter of fighting to defend the Empire, I would have said no. But now these passions have waned and we realize that in fact the Second World War was fought to defend freedom. Today they are trying to rekindle

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
our fellow citizens' patriotism by telling them that a Yes vote is a vote for dignity.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, I think I have shown they are trying to impair irretrievably the dignity and pride of the people in Quebec. For our part, we offer them something infinitely more encompassing. Rather than have a country based on religion, as emphasized by the Tremblay royal commission hardly 25 years ago, they want one founded on race or language; we invite our fellow countrymen from Quebec along with other Canadians of all regions to make up an open, brotherly society based on mutual aid. We want them to be part of Canada, but not because Canada spends more money in Quebec-if that were the reason we would not deserve to be Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre De Bané: Furthermore, the word "federal" comes from the Latin word foedus, or a pact, with fides which means confidence, promise, commitment, obligation, wish. The idea of a pact does not conjure up only a solemn promise between two or more people to have confidence in one another and to respect a commitment. It also suggests co-operation, reciprocity, mutual aid. It is not just by whim that the great French political scientist Raymond Aron stated recently that federalism is wisdom and fraternity applied to politics. A great minister in the de Gaulle administration, who is still a minister in France, Alain Peyrefitte, said recently in his book: "Le mal frangais
Many people think that France has a great advantage, owing to its unitary system. However, after observing the scene for three decades, I am convinced that polycentric countries-
And he mentions the Swiss, German and United States federations-
-that the polycentric countries constitute more flexible societies.
These are the words of the minister of justice in France, Alain Peyrefitte, who has studied the unitary and polycentric systems for three decades.
Mr. Speaker, where we want to lead Quebeckers is toward an open, fraternal society, that will participate within a country in this system of mutual aid, fraternity, co-operation. Ask a Frenchman, a German, an Englishman, a Spaniard, an Italian, what is their impression of us and they will tell you that we are by far the luckiest people in the world. That is my most deep-seated conviction.
Recently, in a world survey, Gallup found out that the happiest people live in Canada. People in France were asked in a recent survey in what country other than their own they would most like to live. The country that came far ahead of all others was Canada.
A Canada that for us is a land of freedom, a Canada where the relationships between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians will be characterized by equality and fraternity,
a Canada that will be even more generous toward its people who suffer, are sick or poor, and precisely because we will be still richer in the years to come, a Canada that will be interdependent with all other countries of the world. A Canada that, for all of us, for each and every one of us, will keep on being a challenge to our intelligence and an appeal to open our hearts.
And I conclude with this thought of Saint-Exupery, Mr. Speaker, that the noblest profession of man is to unite men.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I just take a moment to commend the previous speaker for his intense and very passionate plea for national unity. It was a privilege to sit on this side and listen to him, and I want to tell him that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I want to begin today, Mr. Speaker, by saying it is a personal privilege for me to participate in this throne speech debate. I should like, first of all, to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Madam Speaker on her very significant appointment. I should also like to commend the mover and seconder of the address in reply for their well prepared and ably delivered lead-off speeches.
In my remarks today I intend to discuss several serious issues of special concern to our western prairie provinces, issues that I would describe as much too important to be dealt with in a partisan political manner.
I want to begin by talking about energy, drought, and a lost generation. Alberta's present-day energy resources are really the end result of a fortunate accident in climate and geography that involved dinosaurs and tropical growth many, many millions of years ago.
During the late 1920s and the 1930s I well remember the numerous gas wells, all appropriately called oil wells because that was what their drillers were looking for, on widespread range lands adjacent to our ranch operation in south east Alberta where I still live today. These gas wells had located gas without any trouble, were able to produce, and in some cases were blowing off uncontrolled into the atmosphere. There were no pipelines, of course, and no markets for this early natural gas.
It was not until about 1940 that the Alberta government introduced and passed the necessary Alberta legislation to export both oil and natural gas to other provinces and to the United States of America.
It was also another accident in climate and geography that brought on the great North American drought throughout all of the 1930s, and covering our three prairie provinces in Canada. Coinciding exactly with this continental disaster, was the ten years of business depression. That ten years of drought and depression was, in reality, half a generation lost, followed immediately by another half generation in a sort of recovery phase. We had to learn again how to handle money, how to
April 18, 1980

borrow and spend it, and that may sound strange today. That was the period of our history when small "c" conservatism was truly entrenched in the west, and especially in Alberta.
While our economies began to turn around in the mid 1940s, it was really only during the 1960s that our western prairie economies truly began to come back. We are only now regaining that lost generation of 40 years ago. This is the reason we now value so highly those energy resources that lie below the soils that drifted so disastrously in the 1930s. I ask hon. members most sincerely to try to understand that Alberta's present Heritage Fund of about $6 billion does not even begin to make up for that lost drifted soil and that lost generation 40 years ago.
I remind the House of this grim history of our western prairies because of my deep concern that the same combination of climate and geography could bring about another drought, even ten consecutive years of it. In spite of immense improvements in agricultural technology, there is no reason why another drought could not occur again all across North America, in the interior, of course.
For our cultivated crops, the results would be exceedingly serious, but not as severe as in the 1930s, thanks to our incredibly sophisticated mechanical farm equipment, and more so, thanks to our chemical herbicides-provided we will be allowed to use them.
During the 1930s, one weed, Russian thistle, single-handedly destroyed thousands of acres of spring seeding, because once the seed was in the ground and sprouted there was no way of controlling Russian thistle other than by plowing down the crop, and, of course, there was insufficient moisture to reseed if that was the course that was followed.
For our western grass pastures it is a different story. The consequences of another drought will be just as serious as that first one for those of us involved in grass growing. There are 45 million acres of grasslands presently used for domestic livestock production in western Canada. Grass, hay, surface stock-water and local flood schemes would suffer severely.
Some members may recall the remarks pertaining to a one-year western drought in 1977 that I made on various occasions in this House. Our mountain snow pack that year was only about 60 per cent of the average. That was the lowest snow pack since 1941 and our 950,000 acres of intensive irrigation just barely survived the growth season that year. Not generally known is that the cities of Calgary and Regina had dangerously low domestic water supply levels. Calgary was within three days of initiating water rationing. A sustained drought now would have a far more serious impact on our entire western prairie human population because of the enormous increase in the demand for water.
The three southern cities of Calgary, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat in Alberta and the three cities of Moose Jaw, Regina and Saskatoon in Saskatchewan have seen their total populations increase from 230,680 in the mid-1930s to well over one million today. That is a 337 per cent increase over 45 years.
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
Add to this the substantially increased water demand from the many hundreds of smaller towns and thousands of individual farms and rural acreages, all with automatic dishwashers, laundries and flush toilets. Of course, very few of the latter group I have just mentioned enjoyed this running water luxury in the 1930s.
I suggest that we all read again the startling evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Regional Development in November, 1979, when PFRA officials, Dr. Harry Hill and Mr. Collinson, were witnesses. Mr. Collinson pointed out that the cost of producing electricity throughout the prairies was an extra $100 million in 1977 because the snow pack in the Rockies was so short. I want to commend Dr. Harry Hill for his initial consideration of this matter relating to drought since he assumed his responsibilities not long ago with the PFRA.
In addition, I would like to remind all concerned of the personal suggestion that I was privileged to make before that same committee calling for a small select parliamentary committee review of PFRA, including its past history, its present status and its future role as the appropriate federal agency to assemble and implement a suitable drought contingency program. This suggestion received all-party support in November, 1979.
It should also be noted that the Canada West Foundation, located out of Calgary, has recently initiated a western Canada water resources project to provide an information base and define the problems, the most important of which in my opinion is drought.
I can assure the House that I am not desirous of deserving the doubtful distinction of being the drought conscience of this Parliament, but we should be doing much more than reminiscing about these matters in 1980. Our southern prairies have just emerged from a very mild winter with very little snow. In reality it was a winter drought, and there is presently very little soil moisture to sustain whatever spring growth is now occurring.
On a related matter, the federal government has a longstanding commitment to repair the Bassano dam on the Bow River in southern Alberta. Certain complex legalities concerning the ownership of this streambed have delayed this long overdue repair. I say we should get on with this undertaking, and if the legal complications cannot be resolved, then the Eyremore site somewhat downstream should be proceeded with.
There is one final suggestion 1 would like to make concerning drought. We should be proceeding now with long-range water planning. This includes serious consideration of northern Alberta river diversions to southern Canada. This sort of thing takes years of planning and involves both federal and provincial governments. In the west it will be the three prairie governments who will be involved and it must be undertaken within the provisions of the prairie provinces water apportionment agreement.

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
I want to turn now to another very emotional issue not related to anything 1 have said up to this point but nevertheless a very important issue. We are all very much aware of the Quebec referendum and the national public debate it has generated. Of course, this debate has made us conscious of that. However, 1 want to bring to your attention an issue that deals with the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. Debate on this issue is presently under way in western Canada and in its own significant way it is almost as important to the west, and even to Canada, as the issue I have just mentioned.
During the last two years there have been some excellent public debates at various annual agricultural meetings and symposiums throughout the western provinces. The subject is now freely discussed with much less emotion than it was for many years when it was rarely, if ever, raised in a formal way. But this debate is only taking place in western Canada. There has never been a proper formal parliamentary debate on this Crowsnest Pass freight rate issue.
The closest approach to such a debate was a Conservative opposition day which took place on May 26, 1977, when we discussed the Hall report. It seems that we all avoid a direct debate on this issue by a variety of points of view on the deliberately vague phrase "the Crow benefits". Various contributing issues dealing with such things as hopper cars, producer cars, switching, off-board quotas and our domestic feed grain policy, are really symptoms of the basic problem, namely the Crow freight rate.
Thanks to Carl Snavely's report, we now know what it costs to move our prairie grain, and that knowledge is now generally accepted by all concerned. Surely this political reality is now apparent; that our two railways cannot be ordered or forced to haul grain at less than compensatory rates.
With a majority Parliament that may very well last for as long as four years or more, this Thirty-second Parliament should have a formal Crowsnest Pass freight rate debate complete with a standing committee whose members would travel throughout the prairie provinces, possibly in about two years. That will give us another two years for the informal debate to develop. In the interval, before such a debate, would it not be appropriate to request the Supreme Court of Canada to examine and rule not on the legality of those statutory Crow rates-that point is surely not in question-but on the often repeated claim that the profits of various CPR subsidiaries be used by that railway, namely the CPR, to supplement their inadequate freight revenues on grain. Some of those subsidiaries are Cominco, Pine Point Mines, Marathon Realty and literally dozens of others that are closely related to the CPR.
It seems to me that this carefully considered and serious suggestion is a necessary preliminary step to a meaningful parliamentary debate on the Crow freight rate issue, and I hope it receives serious consideration.
I want to turn now to another issue that I think is disturbing many of us throughout the country. I think it has been referred to once or twice in this throne speech, but I want to put forward one or two ideas of my own. I refer to the metric issue.
1 sincerely hope that all members do not underestimate how disturbing and controversial the metric issue is. It has been a serious and disturbing issue throughout two election campaigns and continues to be.
Here is my considered opinion on how we might deal with metrication. We should allow the present status of metrication to remain unchanged, that is, no changeover deadlines such as those scheduled for January 1, 1981, but allow for voluntary participation in those sectors which wish it, unless one of two courses is adopted. First, there should be a proper, formal debate on metrication in all stages proceeded with in this Parliament, including a travelling standing committee stage across Canada. Incidentally, if we have such a debate, it will be the first formal debate on metrication to take place in the Parliament of Canada. Over the past 11 years there has been an off and on informal debate only.
The second possibility, and this is my preference, is that we proceed with a formal agreement or treaty with the United States which provides for both countries to proceed together on the metric changeover. Until we can agree on a date and schedule for acting together, we should not proceed.
Before I conclude, I want to make a brief but very specific mention of something in the throne speech that really pleased me. Up until now I have not said a word about my special labour of love, the cattle industry. That may surprise some members. However, there were three or four words in the throne speech that pleased me very much. There was mention of a meat import law. I would be much less than human if I did not say how pleased I was to see that. I am very anxious to get some details from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) especially with regard to how he proposes to define the term "meat" rather than "beef", which is my favourite. It no doubt has some connotations which are a little different, but the fact that this reference is in the throne speech is worthy of comment and I appreciate its being there.
In conclusion, I wanted to cover subjects in my remarks that are too important for partisan politics. I hope my hon. friends in this House will agree that these are in that category; they are at least in my opinion.

[ Translation]


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a copy of the notice which will be published today in the Canada Gazette regarding the election of Mr. Dave Nickerson in the electoral district of Western Arctic.
April 18, 1980


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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) (p. 31).
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House. You are the first woman ever to hold this important office, and I am convinced that you feel much pride in your appointment. I am also proud of the fact that it is to a Quebecker that this historic honour has been conferred. I hope that in the next and subsequent centuries, a great number of women, including a great number of Canadian women and people from Quebec, will follow in your footsteps.
As you know, Madam Speaker, my hopes concerning the role in the House of Quebec men and women may not be realized. Last Tuesday, Mr. Levesque announced that the referendum would be held on May 20. The PQ is seeking the mandate to end all participation in the Canadian Parliament of the duly elected representatives of the people of Quebec. It is seeking a mandate to make you the last woman from Quebec to hold the office of Speaker of the House. It is seeking a mandate to make Pierre Elliott Trudeau the last Quebecker to hold the office of Prime Minister of this country, and the mandate to make me the last Quebecker to be justice minister of Canada, and so on for all the other Quebeckers who are in the House today.
For the past 113 years this House has been at the centre of Canadian history. If it is exceptional, it is because it is the only forum where the elected representatives from all regions of Canada can meet. We all try to formulate to the best of our ability the aspirations, ideas and interests of our constituents. We listen to what other members have to say and try to understand fully the wealth and diversity of our country.
The PQ is asking for a mandate which would forever leave vacant the 75 Quebec seats in the House, a mandate which would prevent 75 men and women elected by the people from being present to express the will of Quebeckers to live a better life within a better Canada. During the next few weeks, we shall fight to make sure that Quebeckers continue to occupy in the Canadian Parliament the seats to which they are entitled. Madam Speaker, I do not think that the people of Quebec want to break up Canada. I urge them to avoid the trap which the PQ has prepared for them in the referendum. That party used to display some measure of honesty. It said openly that its objective was independence, separation. Even now, at times it does express its intentions clearly as it did, for instance, on March 16, 1977, when Mr. Levesque stated in the National Assembly that, and I quote:
The Address-Mr. Chretien
Our political option is to break away from the federal system. That is our objective: independence, sovereignty. There is no point in mincing our words.
That statement is a slip of the tongue, an accidental admission, because the aim of the whole PQ strategy is to hide the real intentions of the party behind a flow of reassuring words, such as sovereignty-association, true confederation, sovereignty with association and a new agreement. The truth of the matter is that the new agreement he means in 1980 is nothing other than the separation he spoke of in 1968. Under the disguise of all those words, Mr. Levesque and the PQ are every bit as separatist as ever. It would be a tragedy for a majority of Quebeckers to give a mandate to the PQ. They would then have rallied to a cause whose premises they do not believe in. They would then make a renewed Canada far more remote, when in fact that is the Canada they really want. The government of Canada knows full well that the people of Quebec are acutely aware of the need for change. Unfortunately, the PQ created a climate in Quebec in which it is difficult to judge the importance of what changes have already been made, and the value of what we already have in Canada. Doubtless, Canada has achieved a lot. Federalism has evolved considerably.
Let us look at a few examples. The institutions of the government of Canada were changed forever by the Official Languages Act, as my colleague the hon. member for Matane and Minister of Regional Economic Development (Mr. De Bane) put it so eloquently a few minutes ago. We now have a highly developed system of federal-provincial consultation which has transformed the relationships between the federal and provincial governments. You can see it at all first ministers' meetings which have become an annual event.
Since the war which perforce was an era of centralization, fiscal and financial agreements within the Canadian federation have changed radically. In 1945, provincial and municipal governments controlled only 31 per cent of all government revenues, after transfers. In 1960, their share was nearly 50 per cent, and in 1979 they controlled no less than 67 per cent of public revenues in Canada. In view of those figures, it can be said, as the Parti Quebecois does, that Canada is a highly centralized or a centralizing country. Behind those significant figures are other changes of very great importance. Take, for example, the parallel creation in 1965 of the Canada and the Quebec pension plans which gave the government of Quebec enormous sources of investment. For example, the 1974 agreement on family allowances allowed a major federal program to be geared to the particular needs of each of the provinces. And 1 do not have to stress the importance of the established programs financing agreement in 1976.
Canadian federalism has changed spectacularly in another financial area, namely equalization payments to the least privileged provinces. Equalization payments amounted to only $46 million in 1957-58. They have soared to $3.3 billion today and represent one of the central elements of modern federalism

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Chretien
in Canada. That benefit of Canadian federalism will provide Quebec this year with an amount of $1.6 billion, more than 50 per cent of the whole program. That is the equivalent of $262 or more than $1,000 per family of four. None of those changes-and I mentioned only a few of the more important examples-suggest that our federalism is fixed or unchanging. Those major changes were possible without having to amend formally the written constitution of our federation. These changes prove that it is possible to renew the Canadian federation. As you are aware, the writing of a new constitution remains a fundamental objective for all Canadians. Since there is no amendment formula, we must do our utmost to reach a consensus among the partners in the federation about a new constitution. I suggest such a consensus is emerging at this time. It can be seen in the various proposals made by most provincial governments, by all parties in this House, by the Pepin-Robarts Commission, by the Canadian Bar Association, and many others. Although different in many respects, these proposals all agree on the core of the reform. They all call for a modernization of the distribution of powers, for bettering the central institutions, for constitutional safeguards concerning fundamental civil rights for Canadians and linguistic rights for minorities throughout the country, and also for a renewal of the role of the federal government in distributing the wealth of the country in order to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians.
But what did the Parti Quebecois do regarding this growing consensus? It adamantly rejected any federal solution to the problem of Canada. It is absolutely not interested in the renewal of Canada. What it wants is a mandate to negotiate the end of Canada and the creation of an independent and separate state. It is not seeking a mandate to come and sit at the conference table to negotiate. It only wants to come and demand independence and association. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that to give such a mandate to a political party that has always rejected any federal solution can in no way help the renewal of Canadian federalism.
Thus the argument that the Parti Quebecois, if given a mandate, will be able to start negotiations and reach a compromise does not hold. Such a mandate would have exactly the opposite result in that it would generate much uncertainty and foster a significant deterioration of the relations within Canada. It would certainly jeopardize the will to change which has has been evident and it would postpone for several years the constitutional reform.
What is more serious is the fact that it could cause positions to harden and create misunderstandings which could result in a division of our country.
It is appropriate to mention that in its campaign, the PQ has emphasized the absurd idea that a mandate given to a separatist party would bring about a constructive change and promote a new deal. I repeat that the new deal of 1980 is in fact the separation of 1968. Only the words have changed!
I trust in the common sense of my fellow Quebeckers. They will look into the details of the PQ's proposal before making up their mind. They will find that the mandate the Parti Quebecois requests is aimed at putting an end to the Parliament of Canada, the Canadian nationhood, the role now played by Canada on the international scene and to the benefits derived by all Quebeckers from our resources.
All Canadians are justifiably proud of the significant position held by our country on the world scene. Canada has greatly contributed to the allies victory during World War II. She played a decisive role in the creation of the United Nations and other major international organizations set up after the war, like NATO. Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Pearson, through their statesmanship, have made Canada's name well known during the forties, the fifties and the sixties. Today, Canada is governed by a man who is recognized as one of the great leaders of the western world. The Parti Quebecois is asking for a mandate to put an end to all that.
It would be the end of a Canada endowed with the greatness, confidence and historic ties which gave her a unique role in the world. Quebeckers would no longer have the right to carry the Canadian passport which is so respected. The Parti Quebecois is asking for a mandate to divide and to reduce the presence of Canada in the world, a mandate to create two small countries next to a giant, two bitter countries which will distrust each other and which will be isolated in an unstable and uncertain world.
If you doubt for a minute that the Parti Quebecois is committed to independence just read last week's newspapers in which Mr. Rene Levesque recognizes that a PQ victory in the referendum would be a mandate to create a separate army in Quebec. This is what a new deal means: a separate army, a separate country. PQ members are also asking for a mandate to negotiate an end to the wealth sharing process in Canada. The so-called association they propose would only be a vague reflection of the true economic association which exists at present. In their so-called economic association, Quebeckers would lose what they now have, namely their share in the Beaufort Sea, the Athabasca tar sands, the prairies' wheat, the offshore resources of the Pacific coast and Atlantic oil resources, etc. Canada's strength lies in the fact that all Canadians are partners sharing common resources. The separatists are asking for a mandate to deprive Quebeckers of these riches. The PQ proposition is all the more stunning that it means the relinquishment of other riches that are vital to Quebec. For example, Quebec asks for a mandate to negotiate an end to the sharing of revenue derived from Canadian taxes and Canadian oil supply to Quebec. In both cases, Quebec stands to lose a great deal. Actually what does a mandate to negotiate the end of the sharing of tax benefits mean?
April 18, 1980

Mr. Speaker, it amounts to a mandate to increase Quebec provincial income tax by 33 per cent should it wish to retain the same social services; a pension, family allowances, contribution to various provincial expenses, and so forth. In any case, they would have to find $900 for each household, or a total of $1.4 billion. That will be another hole that Mr. Parizeau will have to fill, the independence hole. Let's not forget that Quebeckers are already paying the highest taxes in Canada. For example, they pay 21 per cent more than their western neighbours, the Ontarians, and 28 per cent more than the average resident of the other nine provinces. The PQ also puts a great deal of emphasis on the need for Quebec to have full control over its resources.
As a Quebecker, I am proud of the success of Hydro-Quebec. However, 1 am not blind to some fundamental facts which are as follows: Quebec is relatively poor as far as energy is concerned. In 1978, it produced only 38 per cent of the energy it used. While it has exported some electricity, it imports all of its natural gas, oil and coal. Hence Quebec is very lucky to be a part of Canada, which produces more energy than it uses. Quebec has benefitted directly from Canadian energy resources in two ways: first, by paying for western Canadian oil at a price much below the international price; second, by receiving a substantial grant which enables it to buy foreign oil at the Canadian price.
These two advantages mean for Quebec a saving of $3.8 billion. The PQ makes no mention of this in its so-called economic association. In effect, it is asking for a mandate to negotiate an end to the grants. This will add a further $1,250 to the energy bill of the average Quebec family of four. That is the kind of mandate the PQ is seeking in the field of energy.
Mr. Speaker, I may have quoted too many figures, and I apologize, but I think it is important for my colleagues and myself to take this opportunity to correct certain misconceptions. I am privileged, Mr. Speaker, to have sat in this House for 17 years and served my country as a Minister of the Crown for over 12 years. I came to Ottawa in 1963 with some of my colleagues, with some apprehensions of the federal system. But I have learned much about Canada. I have had the privilege for six years, one month, three days and two hours to be Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and that is how I learned what Canada was all about. I have learned for example that in Arctic settlements there are more sedimentary rocks than in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and California, but I will not dwell on those economic aspects.
I had the privilege to look after citizens of this country who were here before the French-speaking and English-speaking people came-the Indians and the Eskimos. And in the mandate I was given,I had to speak to them about their belonging to Canada. And you do not know how proud I was to be able to tell them that in Canada they could be what they were, Indians and Inuits, and at the same time full-fledged Canadi-
The Address-Mr. Chretien
ans. It is possible in this country to keep our linguistic and cultural differences, it is possible for those people who were the first citizens on this soil to share a historical cultural heritage unlike ours, and at the same time share the benefits and the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
We have made enormous progress in our society. What irks me a little in the on-going emotional debate in Quebec is that they are still talking about the mistakes of the past, a time when there was a lot of discrimination before Canada grew into a more mature society. Of course there was discrimination. But there is no point, Mr. Speaker, in trying to rewrite history. I too would have liked Montcalm to be able to defeat Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham. I was not there to wake up Montcalm when Wolfe arrived in the night. There is no point in wanting to rewrite history.
But take today's reality. The other day I was in Toronto and 1 was really moved by something I saw. A man of Italian origin who had arrived in Canada with a bag on his back when he was very young and single went up to the mike. He has now become a very successful businessman. I was at a meeting where there were 500 or 600 people, generally of ethnic groups, to honour a person of Jewish faith. That man of Italian origin said: When 1 was a little boy 1 went to a swimming pool where you had to pay 5 cents. I had my 5 cents. When I got to the door I was asked: "Have you seen the sign up there?" The Italian man said: "Yes, I did." It read "For Gentiles Only", people of another faith than the Jewish faith. So the Italian man said: "I am not Jewish, I am Italian". The person at the door answered back: "That's even worse!" And that is the kind of society we have overcome; that no longer exists today. You do not know how proud I was to tell them: Well, this is your brother the peasouper who is with you tonight. That's what this country is all about.
We have made enormous progress and what irritates me in this debate is that they try to sow hatred in our society. Some people hate us because we are federalists, because we decided to come here to Ottawa and defend the interests of our constituents. It hurts. In recent years, when visiting the province of Quebec, I have seen in meetings young brainwashed Quebeckers who hated me because I am a Quebecker like them, I love my people and 1 come to serve them in Ottawa.
This is what hurts, Mr. Speaker. We probably had some unhappy times in our Canadian history. But today millions of human beings would give their shirt and all their possessions to come and share with us what we call our miseries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And it is possible to build a fraternal society in Canada. Arrangements are possible. Everybody wants a new Canadian constitution. No political party wants the status quo. I had some very stirring times Wednesday at the federalist meeting in Quebec. My hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who is here would have been very surprised to see me

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Chretien
sitting side by side with Marcel Masse, both of us speaking for a united Canada. This is what is happening in Quebec. It is possible for people who believe that you can be a Canadian and a Quebecker at the same time. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with my identity. It does not give me any problem, I am a Maurician before anything else. I am from the province of Quebec and I am a citizen of Canada. It does not give me any complex. I can be a Quebecker and a Canadian as well.
Mr. Speaker, what concerns me right now is that people are trying to bring about divisions rather than unity. We have received too much from our creator not to open our eyes to our fellow citizens. Canadian society is one of the most democratic in the world. Our country is the freest in the whole universe. You can hold any type of opinion and support any cause you want in Canada, you can have a different language or a different culture, and your government will encourage you to maintain these differences because a person can achieve his potential when he accepts his own personality and adapts it to the personality of others.
When I look at my country, when I look at the progress accomplished in the last 25 years, I see that there has been a lot of change. Seventeen years ago, when I came here, the Canadian Parliament was not the same as it is now. I can wander around the House and see people of all political parties who spend hours trying to learn the language of the other group. This was not the case 17 years ago. There are schools throughout Canada which are full and refused, where Anglophones want to take immersion classes in French. Of course, we do not expect all the Anglophones to become bilingual. People in Shawinigan or Joliette who work in plants can very well go on speaking French only and those who do the same work in Hamilton or Windsor can very well go on speaking their own language. However, the fact that we have two official languages in Canada is not a problem, but an asset, Mr. Speaker. The fact that we have access to the two greatest cultures of the western world is what makes Canada great.
My last function as finance minister was to sign an agreement with the government of Algeria, and I asked the ambassador why he was signing an agreement in which we granted a credit margin of $2 billion to purchase Canadian goods. His reply was very simple. He told me: Because Canada is the only country which can give us North American technology in French. This is Canada. This is why we are accepted as a nation throughout the world. This is why when you sport a maple leaf or hold a Canadian passport abroad, you are always received as a friend, because we are sufficiently developed to help others and have no extraterritorial ambitions.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we Quebeckers must now think seriously about what the Parti Quebecois is asking, about the true nature of the mandate it has requested.
And I would like to briefly sum up this mandate. It is a mandate for putting an end to the Parliament of Canada; it is a mandate which will make you, Madam Speaker, the first and the last lady from the province of Quebec to preside over the House of Commons; which will make my colleague, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the last French Canadian to ever be Prime Minister of Canada; it is a mandate which will guarantee that Quebec men and women will never sit again as elected repre-sentives in the Canadian Parliament. To all of that, Mr. Speaker, I say no. This mandate would put an end to equalization payments to Quebec, would oppose any reform of Canadian federalism, would create a separate Quebec army, take away from Quebeckers their Canadian passport, would deprive them of the riches of Canada, would put a stop to the sharing of the benefits of the Canadian tax system. It is a mandate to increase the taxburden of the Quebec people or lower their level of government services. To all that, Mr. Speaker, again I say no. Finally, it is a mandate to negotiate an outrageous increase in the price of gasoline and heating oil consumed by Quebeckers.
Mr. Speaker, I say no and I invite all Quebec citizens to say no with me because the Canadian experience is not over yet, because we are able to face up to the challenge and be recognized as full-fledged citizens of Canada while assuming all our responsibilities both as Quebeckers and as Canadians. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we will all meet this new challenge with the knowledge that there can be a better Canada and this is why we will reject the mandate requested by the PQ government by saying, no, thanks, Mr. Levesque.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to extend my congratulations to Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides (Madam Sauve), on her appointment to the chair of this House. I extend my best wishes to her, and to you as Deputy Speaker.
I am very proud to be able to speak today on the motion before the House. I am proud to be here as the representative of the people of Selkirk-Interlake. I thank these fine people for having shown their faith in me twice in the past year. I only hope I will never betray that faith.
Although I was rather active in the last Parliament, having risen on a number of occasions during the question period and in Committees of the Whole, I have never had an opportunity to make my so-called maiden speech. I was scheduled to be my party's next speaker in the budget debate last December, but events deprived me of that opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: So it is with much pleasure that I do so today.
As is customary on the occasion of maiden speeches, I would like to share with the House a brief view of my riding.
April 18, 1980

Selkirk-Interlake lies in central Manitoba, stretching north from the city limits of Winnipeg 250 miles to Grand Rapids. It is bounded east and west by lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Winnipegosis. It is diverse in its makeup. The southeast is given over to urban centres, the west and central parts to agriculture, and the north is a largely unpopulated spread of muskeg and spruce. Scattered throughout are some 12 Indian reserves.
Selkirk-Interlake played a not inconsiderable role in the development of western Canada. It was into this area that Sieur de La Verendrye first led his fur traders from Montreal. It was into this area that Chief Peguis led a band of Salteaux Indians from north central Ontario. In 1812, Lord Selkirk came with his first group of settlers. A few years later these same settlers returned fleeing the massacre at Seven Oaks.
Subsequent settlers included Icelanders who, in 1875, established a colony on the shores of Lake Winnipeg-a colony with its own republican form of government. A few years later came the first Ukrainian settlers to western Canada, followed by Poles and Germans. Among the German settlers were the ancestors of our present Governor General.
From this brief outline, let us turn to look at the concerns of the people of Selkirk-Interlake today. They share with most Canadians a desire to share in the good life that we know that this country can offer us. They share the same frustrations at not being able to share fully in this good life. They share the hardships, both economic and social, that are the result of decades of unconcerned and misdirected government in our country.
Let me be a bit more specific, Mr. Speaker. In my riding there is a large number of farmers. Some are fortunate enough to have some of the best grain land in the west. Others have land that seems to grow rocks better than any other crop. Some run large cow-calf operations; others are market gardeners. All of these farmers are looking to the immediate future with considerable uncertainty. Increases in interest rates and energy costs, and threatened increases to the Crow rates are adding considerable costs to their operations. Meanwhile the price they receive for their product does not keep pace with their cost increases. Indeed, in some cases their prices have dropped. A way of life that is very important to much of Canada, the very continued existence of the family farm and of farming communities, is seriously threatened, and successive Canadian governments do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
Many hundreds of persons and thousands of their family members rely on the lakes bordering Selkirk-Interlake for their livelihood. These are commercial fishermen. They share the farmers' concern about ever increasing costs for energy, and interest rates. They share with their east-coast counterparts an anger at the last government for removing a subsidy which assisted them to upgrade their equipment. Their immediate future is threatened by a provincial government which would like to dismantle the federally constituted Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, a body which has brought stability to the industry and a better standard of living to the
The Address-Mr. Sargeant
individuals. Their future is further muddied by the construction of an irrigation project in North Dakota.
The Garrison Diversion unit has been making waves for years. An International Joint Commission report has confirmed that serious harmful effects would result in Manitoba from the completion of this project. One effect would be the eventual wiping out of Manitoba's freshwater fish industry. Successive government ministers have mouthed assurances that no harm would be done to the Manitoba environment, yet construction continues.
The least fortunate people of Selkirk-Interlake, and those for whom I am most concerned, are the native peoples. Status and non-status natives represent 25 per cent of the population of my riding. They represent a vastly larger proportion of the unemployed. In all native communities unemployment is scandalously high; in some it is in the 90 per cent range for much of the year.
Natives of Selkirk-Interlake are concerned about unemployment. They are concerned about the lack of adequate educational opportunities. They are concerned about the lack of decent housing. They are disturbed about the lack of understanding among the bureaucrats in a bloated Department of Indian Affairs. They ask to be allowed to run their own lives, a not unreasonable request in Canada of the 1980s something that Canadians have struggled and even fought for, for years. Indians ask to run their own lives. It is too typical of the dearth of understanding and of the arrogance of Canadian governments that they claim to know best how to run the lives of our natives One has only to look at the quality of life on most reserves to see how badly these arrogant bureaucrats have failed.
There are many others in my riding, among them women, small businessmen, workers, who all share similar concerns, concerns about where the Ottawa government is taking us. In the past year we have twice gone through the considerable trouble and expense of an election, but nothing has changed. The problems have worsened, and this throne speech offers nothing concrete to turn the country around. It is merely full of tired old platitudes.
Is it any wonder that people in many parts of this land feel alienated from their federal government? Is it any wonder that westerners feel alienated from a government that sends as its ambassador to the west a man who insults western voters for electing so-called eunuchs. To paraphrase my leader, as he so aptly put it the other day, westerners are not alienated from the federal system, we are simply alienated from the practitioners of that system. The people of Selkirk-Interlake share in this feeling and look to this government for better offerings than those made in this throne speech.
We have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the Liberal party's "innovative" plans to represent western Canada. I believe they call it "twinning", and somehow it is strangely related to railroad tracks. The Liberals seem to think that such a plan will put them into touch with the grassroots

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Sargeant
concerns of westerners, but their record, when it comes to responding to the grassroots concerns of their own constituents, is hardly anything to brag about.
For instance, in my riding of Selkirk-Interlake, the unemployment rate has reached an unconscionable level of 9.1 per cent, the highest rate in all Manitoba. A Liberal twin, say, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), might come to my riding to hear the concerns of westerners, and be told, "Mr. Minister, please help us; we want very much to work so that we can pay our bills and feed and clothe our families, but there are no jobs". Flow would the minister respond to their request? No doubt he would respond in the same way that he responds to that same request in his own riding of Cape Breton Elighlands-Canso which, I would add, has an unemployment rate of 16 per cent plus, the highest in the maritimes. How does he respond to that request from his own constituents? In silence!
Perhaps the minister might, while visiting my riding, meet a fisherman who would no doubt tell him, politely, of course, that he was having a tough time making ends meet because he needed a new fishing boat and the government's freeze on the 35 per cent subsidy on the purchase of fishing boats means he just cannot afford that new boat. The minister has heard that complaint too. The fishermen of Cape Breton are feeling the effects of this freeze as much if not more than their counterparts in western Canada, and yet what has he done for his constituents? I suggest he has done nothing.
On the other hand the minister might have the chance to meet farmers or small businessmen in Manitoba's Interlake and he might ask what was on their minds. They would be quick to tell him high interest rates and high energy costs are just unbearable. A farmer might also add that freight rates for his livestock are reducing him to a subsistence level of farming.
The minister has heard all these concerns from the farmers and small business people in his own riding. We have seen his response to these questions-raise the ceilings for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act or the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Big deal! For most farmers and small businessmen in Cape Breton or Selkirk-Interlake, that amounts to virtually nothing.
The point of this brief exercise in comparative economic problems is to show the government that there is no need to twin with western ridings to discover what bugs them. Members opposite need only to look in their own backyards to become conversant with the sources of western discontent. The sources of western discontent are those same problems that face their constituents, and the same problems that hon. members opposite have been unable to cope with for the many years they have sat as the government of this nation.
As I have said, there were many omissions from Monday's throne speech, but perhaps the most disturbing for me, as my party's defence critic, was the absence of any announcement that this government intends to launch a full-scale review of Canada's defence policy. Perhaps I should not have been all that surprised by this omission in light of some of the extraordinary statements that have been made recently by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne).
In response to the question of when will a new defence white paper be undertaken, the Minister of National Defence replied:
I don't want to talk about a white paper, when you consider it means a stack of studies and all kinds of evaluation-
He went on to say in addition that he would not mind so much, but white papers were "complicated and, yes, boring". That is right, Canada will continue to flounder endlessly without direction in its defence initiatives because the current minister feels that a white paper would be complicated and boring.
Make no mistake, Canada is floundering when it comes to an up-to-date defence policy that recognizes the reality of changing world affairs. In 1971 the last white paper on defence policy was drafted and presented to Parliament. Since then the government of the day has changed, seemingly at random, Canada's defence role to suit its short-term political needs. This government is planning to spend as much as $5 billion on defence in this coming fiscal year. We, as members of Parliament, and Canadians from all walks of life, have no way of knowing that we are getting the best value for our defence dollar.
While Canada flounders aimlessly in search of a defence policy, the world teeters closer to the brink of catastrophe. Escalating tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union do not bode well for our future. The government's intention to work toward disarmament is truly admirable, but the sincerity of such a statement is quickly called into question when, in the same breath, the government announces that it will buy 137 of the most sophisticated fighter aircraft in the world. The F-18A is not a weapon of peace.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, world peace through disarmament should be the goal of our foreign policy. Canada should take the lead with strong independent foreign policy designed with the sole intent of bringing peace to our world. It follows quite logically that we should be using our defence policy as an effective tool for achieving this goal. Canada can lead through example by demonstrating to the world that peaceful co-existence is possible and that there is no need to join in the great rush to the apocalypse. I note only in passing that the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), like his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, seems also to think that white papers are too complicated and boring, and has shelved that laudable initiative of his predecessor.
In September of last year the U.S. Secretary of Defence said that excessive defence spending was risky. Events since that time have proved him all too right. As super powers heat up their cold war and try to leap-frog each other in military supremacy through huge and provocative increases in defence spending, the fuse of the global holocaust becomes shorter. As Canadians, and as a nation that has tirelessly devoted its energies to international peacekeeping and world disarma-
April 18, 1980

ment, we need to know that our defence dollars are being productively spent and are not simply heightening world tension. A complete and thorough review of Canada's military role could examine how and where Canadian military dollars are spent. All facets of our defence policy could be reviewed- NATO, NORAD, UN world peacekeeping, and the protection of Canadian sovereignty.
At present our NATO forces are divided into two small groups. One, the land group, is composed of roughly 3,000 people, while the second, the air group, is made up of roughly 2,000 people. There are approximately 5,000 Canadians in Europe as part of our commitment to NATO. That, my friends, represents one tenth of 1 per cent of the total manpower of the alliance. We must ask ourselves if this is a meaningful commitment or whether, for our energies, we can better contribute to our allies in the North Atlantic. There is already concern within the Department of Defence that our airfields are so badly protected now that, in the event of a conventional conflict, our new $4 billion fighters would be destroyed before they could take off and fire a single shot in anger. Surely our role vis-a-vis our European allies should be rethought so that it is rational and effective in maintaining a stable and peaceful Europe.
Let me briefly mention here our participation in NORAD. The NORAD agreement was first drafted when the principal threat to American security was the manned bomber. But by now we all know that such a threat is virtually non-existent. In 1975 then U.S. Secretary of Defence, James Shlesinger, said that the threat of manned bomber attack was unthinkable in this day of ICBM's and nuclear submarines because of the strike-back capacity of the United States. In the time it would take for a manned bomber to reach North American targets from the Soviet Union, the world would have been destroyed three or four times over by nuclear missiles.
Canada should rethink its role in NORAD. No one denies that we must be able to protect the sovereignty of our nation, but we must be realistic when we identify those things that threaten our sovereignty. Unfortunately I fear our defence planners have not been realistic in their thinking.
It is this same lack of realism, the fact that our planners seem to live in an action-adventure book world, that has led our party to be so critical of the new fighter aircraft project. We have now purchased one of the most advanced fighter planes in the world to protect North America from an eventuality that is only likely to occur, as General Simonds said in a committee on national defence ten years ago, "if all the Russians are crazy". I am sure almost everyone in this House will agree they are not. Surely this is wasteful government spending to the highest degree. And to add insult to injury, it seems very possible that we have purchased an aircraft which the government in Washington will shortly put into mothballs. The NORAD agreement is now up for reapproval. This government should, at a minimum, ensure that the decision whether to renew is referred very soon to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for a full and thorough study.
The Address-Mr. Sargeant
Earlier I made mention of one of the problems that maritime fishermen are facing. Another problem has to do with Canada's extension of its territorial boundaries to 200 miles. This extension has meant that problems of enforcement have arisen. Not enough attention is being paid to the need for Canada to be able to protect the sovereignty of its territorial waters. We do not have the patrol aircraft and the naval vessels to allow us to protect Canadian offshore interests adequately. This proposed defence review could address itself to these problems.
I should like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to respond to some comments directed my way a few days ago by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), the former minister of national defence. In referring to my recent suggestion that the purchase of the fighter be referred to a special committee of the House, he once again showed his complete inability to understand a clearly enunciated position. If he had thoroughly read my release he would have known that I was suggesting a special committee, not the standing committee. He would have known that the terms of reference were such that my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), could have made very valuable contribution to such a review. If the hon. gentlemen were to cut through his myopia, he would discover that the NDP does indeed have policies on defence. These policies are consistent with our over-all philosophy. In our defence policies, as in all others, we put people first. We say that the ultimate goal of our foreign and defence policies must be peace. To achieve peace we must seek disarmament. Does it not strike you as strange, Mr. Speaker, that people who seek peace are ridiculed and very often dismissed as being a bit soft?
One of my colleagues in recent days said to me, "The best way to prepare for war is not to prepare for it". It strikes me as sheer insanity that in the cause of world peace the nations of this world are spending $1.5 billion each and every day on weapons of war. If I may quote George Ignatieff from a recent Maclean's article: "The one sure thing about nuclear weapons is that they do not contribute a defence; they can only be a threat."
If I may repeat myself, I say that the commitment of this government to pursue such a path of peace is suspect. In one paragraph in this throne speech the government speaks of the need "to suffocate the deadly growth in the nuclear arsenals of the world", and of the need for arms control and disarmament. Yet I am reminded that only last fall when my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam called for Canada to join with those of our NATO allies that were opposed to the placement of nuclear missiles in Europe, not a word of support was heard from these same Liberals. The appointment of an ambassador for disarmament, while very laudable, will, I fear, be no more than cosmetic until such time as this country spends as much on disarmament as it does on armament.
I do not live in a dream world. No, 1 am firmly rooted on this earth in the late twentieth century when it is our misfortune and to our shame that we must maintain armed Forces. However, I contend that we can do a far better job with our

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Sargeant
forces than we have been doing. We can use our forces in a much more positive way, in a way that will better serve Canada's needs and interests. Once we determine these needs it is then incumbent upon us to provide our forces with the best and most suitable equipment. But, as I pointed out earlier in this speech, this government does not seem interested in defining these needs and interests.
It is to the credit of the former minister of national defence that he has once again taken a trip along the road to Damascus, and now sees the wisdom in having an early review of our defence policy. I say that this review must be done in conjunction with a foreign policy review. Our defence policy must serve our foreign policy, and not run off on a completely different track. I repeat that our foreign policy must, as its first premise, pursue peace through disarmament, and that our defence policy must reflect this.
We are stagnating in our approach to rapidly changing world events. In an age when cutbacks and restraint are the catch words for our budget drafters, why are we not taking a long hard look at where we spend our defence dollars? As the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) said at the outset of this debate, "the SI5.7 million for just one fighter is enough to purchase 60,000 tons of rice". Surely, as legislators, we must be sure that every dollar spent on defence is needed. A great American general once said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed.
American President Dwight Eisenhower said that in the 1950s. The defence problems of which he spoke then are as true today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Patterson):: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Irénée Pelletier: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) mentioned that my constituency is twinned with his, and he inferred I was trying to represent it. Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely untrue, I am not attempting to represent other constituencies than mine. I am proud to represent my constituents from Sherbrooke, and have no intention whatsoever of representing other people than those who elected me. I am somewhat surprised the hon. member feels offended because another member of Parliament went into his constituency. I remember very well three years ago, one of Mr. Firth's colleagues invited me to his constituency and asked at one point if he could come into mine. I thought this was an excellent idea. 1 had to travel through Mr. Firth's constituency, and well, some 40 per cent of all Canadian territories, and I thought this was an excellent idea. Another member-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


George Harris Hees: You are making a speech. Sit down, buster. That is not a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Patterson):: Order, please. I believe this was a point of debate rather than a point of order, and I would invite the hon. member to begin his address.


Irénée Pelletier: I will conclude in a second, Mr. Speaker. 1 simply want to remind or tell the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake that I do not and am not representing in this House the people of Selkirk-Interlake.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Patterson):: Order! Order, please. Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was told some time ago that I followed the NDP and my turn is up.


An hon. Member:: By two centuries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Patterson):: I have been advised that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie is next on the list.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to congratulate the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides (Madam Sauve) for her nomination as Speaker of the House of Commons, and to commend my colleagues for her election. I would also like to express my gratitude to the constituents of Sainte-Marie who re-elected me as their member of Parliament. This honour I am accepting with deep humility, and I would like to assure them of my total co-operation. I note with pleasure in the throne speech important elements that meet the needs of the Canadian people and more particularly the citizens in my constituency of Sainte-Marie, such as the $35 monthly increase in the guaranteed income for the elderly, the reallocation of resources to job creation for young people, women and the handicapped, a lower price policy for Canadian oil than was proposed by the former government, the establishment of a Petroleum Price Auditing Agency, promoting the establishment and development of Canadian businesses through a government-buying policy, as well as assistance to companies wishing to repatriate assets and the revival of the process of constitutional reform.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to a point which I take to heart, that is the future of Quebec and Canada. We all know that on May 20, Quebeckers will vote on the referendum question as set and I emphasize "set by the PQ." The same party is asking us for a mandate to negotiate the separation of Quebec from the remainder of Canada, a scheme it has called sovereignty-association. It is a well known fact that the leader of the PQ has often objected to the federalists' mention of the word "independence" in the present
April 18, 1980

debate, and stated in the legislative assembly that his party had always advocated sovereignty-association. Following those statements, I checked the PQ platform from 1975 to 1979 and in chapter 2 we find in black and white a reference to accession to independence and on page 62 of the 1978 platform under the title: "Mandate to all representations of the party" the following in paragraph 6 and I quote: The sixth convention asks that an evaluation of federalism be made to show the necessity of independence to carry out the platform of the party. To my knowledge, Mr. Rene Levesque, an active member of the PQ, attended that convention.
Mr. Speaker, the PQ government is promising the Garden of Eden to the people of Quebec. Promises, promises and more promises! At that rate, 1 think they are about to beat the record set by the Parti Rhinoceros for impossible promises. You can find them in the white paper of the Parti Quebecois. This is all very nice, but 1 would like to remind Quebeckers of all the promises the Parti Quebecois made before 1976 and never kept. Elere is one of the very first the party made. It appears in its 1975 program at page 19, and I quote:
A government led by the Parti Quebecois would commit itself to providing all people, including the elderly, with a guaranteed minimum income based on the following principles:
a) the minimum income of a person cannot be allowed to fall below the
poverty line-
I would like to know why Mr. Levesque is keeping social assistance benefits below the poverty line. For example: a single person on social assistance in Quebec receives only $301 per month, and a single person who receives the old age security pension with the federal supplement will get $361 a month as of July 1, 1980, and that pension is indexed every three months whereas in Quebec it is indexed only once a year. I would like to know why Mr. Levesque did not live up to his commitment and why he so quickly abolished the indexing of welfare benefits and decreased, not to say stole, by some $15 million family allowance benefits, when the federal government decided last year to grant a $200 child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Parti Quebecois also made another commitment which is set out on page 21 on the party's program. It says that a Parti Quebecois government is committed to indexing the minimum wage rate to the increase in the cost of living.
Another promise gone up in smoke. On page 24, chapter 9, of the same program, under the heading "Senior Citizens," one finds that a Parti Quebecois government promises to build housing units with rents based on income which will provide, apart from the usual services, superintendent, elevators, laundry facilities, tuck shop, medical services and a lounge. The Quebec finance minister recently informed us that this project will be abandoned next year. This statement appears on page 33 of the Parti Quebecois budget speech.
The Address-Mr. Malepart
In that same program, the government guarantees free transportation for the elderly in urban areas and transportation at reduced fare for intercity travelling. Everybody in Montreal remembers the increase in fares for older people. Moreover, those who live in homes know full well that every three months the Levesque government deprives them of their indexation; who knows what will happen to the $35 the Canadian government intends to give them?
Another promise made by the PQ government on page 27 concerning the education of young people reads as follows:
To implement universal free education at all levels, to raise the compulsory school age to 18, to set up a coherent system of scholarships and living allowances or possibly a pre-salary system.
Just another unfulfilled promise.
Mr. Speaker, how could we believe all the fine promises in the PQ's white paper and in the statements Mr. Levesque and his team have made, when they were not even able to fulfil those they had made before being brought to power?
The PQ's advertising during the referendum campaign reminds me of those finance companies which prevail upon the public to borrow from them without indicating that they charge twice as much as any other institution. That is why the PQ is exerting a pressure on the feelings of Quebeckers to sell them its project, without having the courage to tell them the truth about how much this sovereignty-association adventure is going to cost them.
Mr. Speaker, in 1973 the Parti Quebecois had presented its so-called year one budget but the electorate, knowing the true cost of sovereignty-association, massively rejected the Parti Quebecois and its option for independence. Let us not forget that a Yes vote in the referendum would achieve nothing but maintain uncertainty, and that Yes vote would put our country in jeopardy, as the Prime Minister of Canada put it in his speech to the Parliament of Canada: since provinces refuse to negotiate the association, the Canadian government has no mandate to negotiate sovereignty and Mr. Levesque will not get the mandate to negotiate association pure and simple. Which means that a Yes vote leads to nothing but uncertainty. Can we afford to pay the price for that uncertainty and take the risk of seeing it last until the second referendum? Moreover, who says that in two or three years the PQ, afraid again to present its option honestly, will not use new tactics to perpetuate this climate of uncertainty?
I would also like the chief of the Parti Quebecois to tell us what would be the consequences of a Yes for the 3,000 employees of CBC, the 8,000 employees of Air Canada, the 1,050 employees of Teleglobe Canada, the 600 employees of the Federal Development Bank, the 900 employees of the National Film Board, the 500 employees of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the 500 employees of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the 14,000 employees of Canadian Na-

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Hees
tional and the thousands of civil servants of the Montreal area who work in various federal departments. I would like Mr. Levesque to answer this question.
I should also like to remind the citizens of the Montreal region of the contribution of the Canadian government in the field of social and community aid in 1977-78. With regard to family allowances, the Montreal area then had over 975,000 children and the Canadian government paid the mothers of those children an amount totalling $303 million. Under the heading of old age security, there were 300,000 senior citizens in the Montreal region to whom the Canadian government paid globally over $783 million. Under the heading the New Horizons Program, which program the Canadian government implemented to allow our senior citizens to take a more active part in the life of their communities, the Canadian government paid $1.4 million. Under unemployment insurance, it paid $723 million in 1977.
Under housing, from 1975 to 1978, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian government granted loans totalling over $173 million for the construction and purchase of houses and income-producing housing complexes in the Montreal region. Direct loans for public housing there totalled over $102 million. Moreover, the corporation lent in the Montreal area more than $21 million for rehabilitating individual and multiple housing units. And CMHC guaranteed in the same area loans totalling more than $1.5 million from 1975 to 1978. All those direct and guaranteed loans contributed to the acquisition and rehabilitation of 92,199 dwellings. What did the Government of Canada do to help the municipalities? Municipalities in the Montreal area benefitted under CMHC programs, particularly those dealing with municipal infrastructure, neighbourhood improvement, public housing and medium density promotion. CMHC paid the municipalities in the area more than $428 million from 1975 to 1978 under those programs. Furthermore, the Department of Finance of Canada contributed in excess of $16.2 million in payments in lieu of taxes to municipalities and school boards in the Montreal area in 1977-78.
I would also like to remind people of the assistance of the government of Canada to businesses. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce guaranteed loans totalling $18.4 million to small businesses in the Montreal area in 1977-78. With respect to business expansion, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce of Canada paid grants of $2.5 million and guaranteed loans totalling $13 million in the area under the program to promote business expansion and efficiency. In 1978 the Federal Development Bank awarded in the Montreal area 731 business loans totalling $50.5 million. In 1978 the Export Development Corporation concluded with Montreal businesses agreements exceeding $150 million.
Those are accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, not promises like those made by the PQ. In concluding, for all the negative reasons I have outlined with respect to the Parti Quebecois and
for all the positive reasons I have set out in respect of the Government of Canada and because I am proud to be Francophone, a Montrealer, a Quebecker and a Canadian, I will be voting No to the PQ question and I am sure the very great majority of Quebeckers will say No to the PQ proposition.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, one of the very important things which Canada must do is to become self-sufficient in oil, thereby enabling this country to get out of the hands of foreign oil producers who are now able to charge us anything they like and cut off our supplies whenever it suits them to do so.
To bring this about the government must first of all introduce a very extensive program of research and development to develop cheaper alternative sources of energy, such as energy produced from the sun, grain alcohol, coal, uranium, the tar sands, hydroelectric sources, solid municipal waste, agricultural and forest waste, unutilized industrial by-product heat, and biomass conversion.
The government must also greatly increase the use of natural gas for heating houses, office buildings, factories and apartment buildings. This can be done by subsidizing the cost of the change-over from present oil-heating equipment to gas-heating equipment, and thus greatly encourage people to make this change.
We have abundant supplies of natural gas in this country. Our supplies of this excellent fuel increased by IV2 per cent during the past year and we have more than 7,000 capped gas wells which have had to remain capped because of lack of demand for this valuable heating fuel.
If we can change over from oil heating to gas heating and develop the alternative sources of cheaper energy which I have mentioned, we can use Canadian oil for transportation and plastics only; become self-sufficient in oil; and become independent of the present costly and uncertain supplies of off-shore oil which our present position makes necessary.
As an example of what can be done to introduce a positive program to bring about self-sufficiency in oil, I would like to mention briefly what my own province of Ontario is doing at the present time. In the area of conservation they have set themselves some tough goals. By 1985 they are aiming to reduce the growth in demand in Ontario for all forms of energy to no more than 2 per cent a year while the annual growth in demand for petroleum will be cut to zero per cent per capita.
To my mind, conservation is the most valuable energy resource we have. It is cheap, powerful, abundant, and easily accessible. All it takes is a little common sense, and in some cases, a little help from the government.
April 18, 1980

The province's new five-year $5 million "Heat Save" energy conservation project, for instance, will utilize thermography and home energy audits to aid Ontario home owners in discovering where their homes are losing valuable heat. Thermography is a process for identifying heat loss by measuring infra-red emissions from a building.
In these "heat pictures", which are taken from an aeroplane, home owners can see where heat is escaping from their homes. Armed with this information, home owners can decide for themselves where and how much to insulate their homes.
Over the past three years, the Ontario government has conducted eight pilot projects in thermography, and home energy audits have reached well over 16,000 home owners. In the process, Ontario has become the world leader in the application of aerial thermography.
The government also has a wide range of projects to develop renewable and recoverable energy. As announced in a major policy document last fall entitled "Energy Security for the Eighties: A Policy for Ontario", the government set targets for solar energy to supply 1.8 per cent of the province's total primary energy needs by 1985, and for municipal, forest, industrial and agricultural wastes to contribute another 3.2 per cent.
These goals are part of the government's target to increase Ontario's capacity to produce more of its own primary energy from the present level of 22 per cent to at least 35 percent by the year 1995. Just a few weeks ago the government initiated a program for the development of energy from waste projects in Ontario. In making that announcement, the energy minister pointed out, and I quote:
If properly utilized, energy from waste and biomass conversion could displace the equivalent of 27 million barrels of oil a year, worth about $400 million in 1979 terms. That's enough to heat one million single family dwellings each year.
Over a 15-year period, the government estimates that the production of energy from municipal solid wastes, industrial, agricultural, and forest waste, unutilized industrial byproduct heat, and biomass conversion will require an investment in 1979 dollars of some $3 billion. The government expects a large percentage of the investment will come from the private sector, with the balance coming from the Ontario government, municipalities, the Ontario Energy Corporation and Ontario Hydro.
The ministry of energy has budgeted $2 million in this fiscal year for cost-sharing in feasibility studies and engineering design work. The ministry will provide preliminary assessments of projects as well, and technical advisory services, once a project is under way. Additional assistance will be available under the Canada-Ontario bilateral program.
The government firmly believes that local governments and private industry have a vital role to play in developing energy from waste projects. Such projects will benefit Ontario's
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
economy and will also make it possible for many municipalities and industries to solve their solid waste disposal problems.
In Hamilton, for example, the Solid Waste Recovery Unit, or SWARU plant, is now operated by Tricil Limited. This plant, commissioned in 1972, has a design capacity of 600 tons of prepared refuse a day. It was the first plant of its type in the world. Tricil has a ten-year contract with the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth to process at least 120,000 tons of refuse a year, and plans to expand its operation to include electrical generation from steam in co-operation with the Ontario Energy Corporation.
In the Sudbury region, Inco Limited and the Sudbury Regional Development Corporation have recently announced a joint plan for a similar plant with a capacity of more than 100,000 tons of waste annually.
The government of Ontario feels that these are just two of the existing opportunities for business and government which are waiting to be developed in the area of new energy forms.
Besides energy from waste projects, industry is becoming interested in producing synthetic liquid fuels, in developing solar energy technology and products, and in devising more energy efficient appliances, automobiles and building products-to name just a few. At present, the ministry of energy is reassessing the potential of synthetic liquid fuels, and the minister of energy expects to be presenting a major policy proposal to cabinet in the coming months.
These fuels, which can be produced from natural gas, coal, grain or other agricultural crops and wood, do have a role to play in our future as a means of conserving conventional fuels. Although it is hard to know at this point in time how much of the fuel market they will eventually comprise, very real opportunities exist for the development of the synthetic liquid fuel industry.
This country has the potential to develop a secure supply of energy compared to other industrial countries. Since security of supply is the major consideration of most industries, this availability of energy would give this country a very real industrial advantage in the marketplace. All we need to do as a country is to grab the brass ring.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined to the House what a province with initiative, knowledge, and sound leadership is doing to move toward self-sufficiency in energy, in the shortest possible time. I sincerely hope that the federal government will show the same kind of leadership, so that this country may become self-sufficient in oil with the least possible delay.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: I want first of all to congratulate Madam Speaker on having been selected as the Speaker of the House. The qualities of discipline and tact, the firmness and sensitivity that she has shown during her past service in
190

April 18, 1980
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
government will serve all of us well during her tenure as Speaker of this Thirty-second Parliament. This is indeed an historic Parliament to be under the direction of the first woman Speaker. 1 also want to commend my colleagues from Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) and Sudbury (Mr. Frith), who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, on the excellence of their speeches on that occasion. They were beyond reproach.
The background information they have given the Elouse regarding the parts of Canada they represent certainly assists us all to reach a fuller understanding of our country, with its diversities and its common problems. As the newly elected member for the constituency of Lambton-Middlesex 1 shall, in my maiden speech, take the opportunity to speak about this part of our country-its past, its present, and the potential contribution it has to make to our nation, Canada.
1 want to place on the record my appreciation to the electors of the constituency of Lambton-Middlesex for giving me this opportunity to serve them in this Thirty-second Parliament. The riding is a 6,400 square mile area on the southern tip of Lake Huron, bordering part of one of the world's great seaways. It embraces a blend of agriculture and small business that is unique. It is also rich in history.
In the early 1800s, when our relations with our neighbours to the south were not as friendly as they are today, the victorious battle of the Longwoods was fought in the southern part of this constituency. Later, some of the United Empire Loyalists settled here and carved homesteads from this wilderness land. In the next four decades much of the area in both Lambton and Middlesex counties was settled by immigrants primarily from Ireland, Scotland, and England, who made that emotional decision to leave the country of their birth for a country of their choice. They named their settlements after communities in their homelands, and towns like Glencoe, Appin, and Watford grew, reminding them of their roots. The area prospered and the population increased as the pioneers cleared and cultivated the fertile soil, established their businesses in the context of woollen mills, flour mills, cheese factories, and blacksmith shops, and built their schools and their places of worship.
Historians tell us of a man named Lucas who was forced to leave his farm in New York during this period. He set out to find freedom in Canada. As he proceeded through the Enniskillen swamps, the bedding in his wagon shifted and was dragged along the ground. When he arrived at Watford to spend the night, he was refused lodging because of a foulsmelling substance on his clothes and wagon. He was ordered out of town. A short time later the people in the community realized what the source of the pollution was. It was oil, and after a full investigation the oil industry in Canada was born in my community near a town which was later named Oil
Springs. Shortly after, a few miles away, a new community was established named Petrolia.
Today, more than 100 years after that initial discovery, some of these oil wells are still producing in Lambton county and new ones are being brought into production. These are not, of course, on the scale of productivity we find in other areas of Canada today. It is significant, though, that we are rebuilding part of this old oil field and it is being called Discovery Petrolia, due to be opened in July for tourism in the area. In those early days, the area prospered as a result of the oil industry and the agricultural sector. One of those early pioneers had over 200 oil wells on his property. His name was J. H. Fairbank and he served in this House in the Fifth Parliament of Canada.
It is also interesting to note that another member from the Lambton area was represented in Canada's first four parliaments-Alexander McKenzie, a former prime minister of our country.
Of later note, we in our constituency had the honour of having a very lovely and gracious young lady, Sheila Rose, presented with the Order of Canada at the residence of the Governor General. This was for her work in the field of education and promoting the cause of Canada from coast to coast. The award was very well deserved, I may say.
The technology developed by those early pioneers of the oil industry spread abroad during the following generations. Men went to the Middle East, to South America, to Borneo and other parts of the world, taking their experience and equipment with them. Drill bits are still manufactured in the town of Petrolia for shipment to domestic and foreign fields. To this day, Canadian technology developed by those entrepreneurs is being utilized all over the world. This technology has benefited the world, and as Canadians we can be justifiably proud of our pioneers and of our heritage.
For a number of years at the turn of the century many thousands of people moved to the prairie provinces from my region taking with them their resourcefulness and their expertise in agriculture. There, they were joined by immigrants from all over the world who were making this their country of choice.
In my area, in my lifetime, I have witnessed people from other nations joining us, the Slovak people in the 1930s, the Dutch in the 1950s and the Portuguese in the late 1960s, to name but a few. They came to Canada, a land of opportunity, a land of freedom, and they have made our lives richer by their presence here. I admire their courage and remember that our ancestors too, made this their country of choice. They settled among our native people who still reside in the area today in the communities of Kettle Point, Muncey and Caradoc. It is with pride that these native people contribute and involve themselves in sports, community activities, and society in general.
April 18, 1980

Incidentally, I want to commend the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on his question of privilege in the House this morning which allowed participants from all parties to express themselves on the issue he raised. I think it was a proud occasion in the House when we saw such unanimity among hon. members about certain comments which had been made outside this area.
I am aware of the traditional differences which historically have developed between the east and the west as well as between individual regions, misunderstandings which unfortunately seem to be increasing in intensity rather than decreasing. Perhaps it is due to the nature of modern day communications that we are instantaneously aware of regional advantages and disadvantages. It sometimes seems we have forgotten the hopes and dreams of the Fathers of Confederation as they struggled to unite this vast and diverse land into one great nation.
If we are to fulfil our duties in this House we must not forget that we all have a common bond-the bond of being a Canadian. Whether we were elected to represent a constituency in the east or in the west, we were elected to the Parliament of Canada. This institution is Canada, and if we are to fulfil our duties as elected representatives we must work for a common objective, and part of that objective is a better understanding of our fellow Canadians and the problems that are unique to the respective regions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Ferguson: I would suggest that the Speech from the Throne encompasses and reflects our heritage and our objectives when it refers to ensuring, and I quote-
-a strong country with first claim on the loyalty of all of its citizens; a country that regards diversity as an asset, not a liability; a country whose people share their wealth first with those who need it most; a country that encourages initiative, welcomes daring and promotes enterprise and a country which opens its eyes, its mind and its heart to the larger community of nations, refusing to regard its own national borders as the outward limits of the universe.
Ours is a great and beautiful country which has been blessed by vast and diverse natural resources as well as by as great and diverse human resources. We must look ahead in a positive manner and plan to develop, nurture and utilize those resources. Our greatest resource, of course, is our people. Let us give our young people the incentive and encouragement to travel throughout our land so that they, unlike many of us, may understand the diversity which is Canada and the cultures which have given us such a unique identity. I feel fortunate that my children have had the opportunity to travel across this land from west to east to see and understand its vastness and grandeur. I am proud, too, that they have learned to communicate with Canadians whose first language is French as well as with Canadians whose first language is English.
Another potential I am enthusiastic about is the potential of our renewable resources, and again, in this area, we are the
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
envy of the world because we can develop such a variety of energy sources. Like those early entrepreneurs from the oil industry we now find many young and energetic individuals utilizing crop and communal refuse in a manner which will allow us to conserve our non-renewable resources. We are enthusiastic about a more efficient concept of heating being developed by two young men in my constituency, a concept which will utilize materials presently considered to be waste. I trust that the Renewable Energy Corporation will be of assistance to such individuals and entrepreneurs. The alternatives are there and must be utilized as quickly as possible.
The over-all philosophy of the Speech from the Throne was one of a positive continuation of the potential of our nation, and certainly I am pleased to see included the proposal to establish the Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation that will enable our producers to sell abroad as Canadians, rather than seeing one province competing against another for the same markets. Such a vehicle will enable us to focus on specific markets and expand our sales abroad, utilizing the potential of a renewable Canadian resource. We are one of the few nations of the world with mechanisms in place to plan our production for specific markets and to sell on long-term contractual arrangements. The spinoff effects of such as positive move will create new jobs and be a boon to small businesses and the agro-industries in this nation.
These spinoff effects will not only give us a better balance of trade and thereby benefit all of society, but will enable farmers in Canada to work together as Canadians as envisioned by the Fathers of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it 4.30?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(4), to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.

April 18, 1980
Division


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Nowlan:: Madam Speaker, when the Table called the roll, I distinctly heard them call the name of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence). We have shadow spokesmen in the opposition, but I am Mr. Nowlan. 1 do not know if my name is on the roll. The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland is away and I believe that his name was called twice.


Madam Speaker:: We will check the roll to make sure the hon. member's name is on it.

It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At five o'clock, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 21, 1980