1980-04-15

Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: 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 record increases in interest rates in Canada have occurred since March 3, with the Bank of Canada rate rising from 14 per cent to 16.2 per cent, with the approval of the government, and that record increases in interest rates of the banks, mortgage companies and financial institutions have occurred as a result, with adverse effects on employment, business, especially small business, and consumers, as well as the economy generally, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That this House immediately order its Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to be set up, and that that committee undertake an immediate review of the interest rate policy of this government and of the Bank of Canada, and that for this purpose the governor of the bank and the Minister of Finance appear before it to explain their actions and what they will be doing to solve the problems which the governor of the bank himself said, regarding interest rates, are now causing for individuals and to business.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: That is your motion.


An hon. Member:: Talk about flip-flops.


HIGH INTEREST RATES-CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In a television program broadcast on February 10, 1980, and in my presence, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray)-former finance critic of the opposition in the last Parliament-stated his abhorrence of the high interest rates in this country and his intention to resign if a government of which he was a member did not lower the interest rates. Therefore, in view of the fact that interest rates have increased four times in the past five weeks since this government took power, and to be consistent with the positions of principle which he has taken in the past, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce do forthwith honour the commitment he made before many Canadians, and resign, in order to maintain his credibility in this House and the confidence of its members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House welcomes the assurance given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs prior to the opening of this session that he would be introducing an amendment to the Pension Act to provide prorata pensions for widows where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent, and this House urges the minister to introduce such legislation forthwith, it being understood that it would be dealt with very quickly by this House of Commons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 15, 1980


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion of some urgency. As a result of the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission last Wednesday not to grant Eastern Provincial Airways authority to operate the Halifax-Toronto route, and considering the very serious adverse economic implications of this decision on the economies of a number of Atlantic communities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House records its support for Eastern Provincial Airways in its appeal application to the cabinet, thereby ensuring the continued stable economic growth of many communities in eastern Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In light of the vicious, insulting and divisive Speech from the Throne which can do nothing except further alienate western Canadians, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger):
That in the interest of the unity of the nation, the Prime Minister and his cabinet resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Take Herb with you.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Do 1 have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: 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 signing of the new fighter aircraft contract is reported to have deprived British Columbia, and particularly the community of Mission, in my riding, of some 450 possible jobs, and since out of an estimated $2.9 billion in industrial benefits, only some $400 million is to be spent outside of Ontario and Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That the Minister of Insustry, Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of National Defence, if and when arrangements are completed for the manufacturing of the new fighter aircraft, take steps to ensure that a fairer share of the industrial benefits shall be allotted to provinces other than those in central Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to request the permission of the House to move a motion which is of such a non-political nature and in accordance with the views on all sides of this House, and seconded by a member of the Libera! party, that 1 hope it will receive unanimous consent.
I refer specifically to Mr. Kenneth Taylor, the former Canadian ambassador to Iran, and his courageous performance in that country which has been a credit to Canada, and also the fact that he has contributed greatly to Canada-United States relations and has been honoured by a special medal struck on the authorization of both Houses of the American Congress. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House of Commons respectfully recommends to the selection committee of the Order of Canada that it consider dispensing with the customary procedures and recommends to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada that Mr. Kenneth Taylor be invested with the Order of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Do I have unanimous consent?
April 15, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: 
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Whereas the recent spill of 10,000 gallons of methanol in the CPR rail yards in Winnipeg could have had very serious dangerous effects on the people of Winnipeg; and whereas it is likely that there will be other spills of dangerous chemicals in the CPR rail yard which is situated right in the centre of the city; and whereas the removal of the rail marshalling yards would free-up 200 acres of land in the core of the city for redevelopment and would stop the blight spreading around the rail yards, 1 would move:
That this House calls on the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to meet as soon as possible with representatives of the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba to plan for the movement of the CPR marshalling yards out of the city, it being understood that the federal government would be prepared to pay a substantial portion of the cost of moving the rail yards.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. I was surprised that his colleagues deliberately rejected the adoption of a motion couched in exactly the terms of a motion they proposed in the previous parliament in relation to a parliamentary inquiry into interest rates, particularly since the government has adopted a floating bank rate, about which the governor of the Bank of Canada expressed serious reservations during the hearings last fall. 1 wonder if this simply reflects contempt for a parliamentary
Oral Questions
inquiry, or whether there is some other reason why the Minister of Finance has encouraged his colleagues to stop that kind of an inquiry.
I wonder whether the minister will tell me specifically if he will reconsider that position, whether he would be prepared to recommend that the finance committee be struck, and whether he would be prepared to appear with the governor of the Bank of Canada so there could be a full and public inquiry by members of this House into all matters of policy relating to interest rates.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I was aware that the motion moved by the hon. member was in the precise terms of the motion moved by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In fact, I have watched these gentlemen so frequently that I can anticipate pretty well what they will do, and what they did today was to move the motion that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce moved last session.
I thought they might have followed a more imaginative course and done something different, but they did not.
I have decided that it might be better to give a little more consideration to the kind of motion the House might adopt. I am not opposed in principle to giving the standing committee a further opportunity to consider the changed interest rate situation, including the floating rate, and when the committees are set up 1 will give consideration to a reference.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister, with the kind of evasiveness with which he has dealt with economic problems in the country, has indicated that he is not opposed in principle. Does he support in principle the idea that this Parliament has the right to an early opportunity to review interest rate policy? Will he give us a commitment, now, that he will seek the immediate striking of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and that he will, personally, seek and support an immediate reference of all questions relating to interest rate policy, including his appearance and the appearance of the governor of the Bank of Canada before that committee? Will he give us that clear, concise and unequivocal assurance now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I know that the President of the Privy Council will be setting up the standing committees, and I have already undertaken to the Leader of the Opposition that I will give consideration to making a reference to the committee so that that committee will have an opportunity to examine the whole question of interest rates. Perhaps we will be able to hear from the former minister, whose policy is about the same as mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Finance is unwilling to give a straightforward answer to a simple question. Let me try him on another simple and straightforward question; will the minister give a commmit-

April 15, 1980
Oral Questions
ment to this House, now, that he will bring in a full budget before the end of May, and will he give us a date for that budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the interest of simplicity, the answer is no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


RISING INTEREST RATES-DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who 1 hope will copy me in all that he does. If he does, then he will serve this country well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: On October 25, 1979, the bank rate went to 14 per cent. At that time, the finance critic for the Liberal party said in the House of Commons committee on finance, trade and economic affairs:
-it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, increases in the cost of living, it will bring the housing industry to a halt, it will put housing beyond the reach of most middle and lower-income Canadians, it will hurt small business and it will hurt farmers, and will add to the cost of food.
The hon. member therefore intimated that the Liberal party had other solutions. Why, in the light of this objection last fall, did the Minister of Finance allow the interest rate to go to 16.2 per cent within four weeks of his assuming office on March 3? The minister has allowed the rate to go up another 2.2 percentage points. How could he allow this, in view of the statements made by the finance critic last fall? What is the solution which the finance critic had last fall but which the Minister of Finance does not seem to be able to advance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. gentleman will be a model to me, but one aspect of his career that I will not follow is to have my first budget defeated by the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Bring one in.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 do not intend to go into the past history of debate in the House of Commons. It will be a natural tendency for opposition parties to oppose high interest rates and to seek alternative solutions to the higher interest rates. The hon. gentleman will follow that practice, and I have no complaint about that customary role taken by opposition parties.
However, it is the responsibility of the government, and particularly of the Minister of Finance, to follow a policy that is in the best interests of the Canadian economy, and the policy that is presently being followed is in the best interests of the economy. If the hon. gentleman or hon. members from any party in the House have alternative monetary policies to the one currently being followed by the governor of the Bank of
Canada, which I support, then I would be happy to consider those policies.


Mr. Dick:: Give it to the committee.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the hon. minister has said that he is following the course which is the best for the country and the course which I adopted last fall when I was in power. How does he, then, explain the hypocrisy of his party, which opposed that policy when in opposition and which now says that it is the best policy for the country? How does the minister explain the fact that on December 13, 1979, he voted us out of office with his non-confidence motion which said we failed to lower interest rates? How does he explain that action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman should remember that the motion which defeated the government last December was moved by the New Democratic Party.


RISING INTEREST RATES-JUSTIFICATION THEREFOR
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that my Conservative friends to the right are just a little concerned that the Liberals have increased the interest rate four times, which means they have matched the Conservative record in a briefer period of time. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: What does that have to do with the price of bread?


John Edward Broadbent: -since his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, told the House last October 26 that every half point the interest rate goes up, it costs businesses in Canada $375 million, does the Minister of Finance agree with that assessment; and, if so, how does he square it with the absurd opinion that he just offered to the House, that this high interest rate policy is good for the Canadian economy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously the higher interest rates that we are experiencing in this country are harmful to certain segments of the population: no one denies that. They are particularly damaging to small business, to fa'rmers, to home owners-


An hon. Member:: Who is that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and it is for that reason-


An hon. Member:: Who are they good for?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that we announced in the Speech from the Throne our intention to take some steps to help home owners who are presently renegotiating their mortgages.
I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that if he can propose any alternative monetary policy, in light of the very high interest rates now prevailing in the United States, in
April 15, 1980

light of the interconnection between the capital markets of Canada and the United States, and in light of the trade that exists between our two countries, then I will be very happy to discuss it with the governor of the Bank of Canada; but I do not want to hear any of the irresponsible utterances which he made from one end of Canada to the other during the election campaign.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to deal with the request of the Minister of Finance for advice, and later this afternoon he will receive some.


INTEREST RATES POLICY ENUNCIATED IN SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
John Edward Broadbent: 1 should like to go to the Prime Minister now, since we have had reference to irresponsible campaign speeches. In light of what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons last October 29, and 1 quote:
At what point will the government look at these alternatives, rather than following the American interest rate up to 13 per cent, 14 percent and God knows how high?
And considering the Prime Minister's promise during the campaign that if elected, his party would have a lower interest rates policy than the Conservative Party of Canada, how does he account for the fact that interest rates have gone up four times since he assumed office, and the categorical rejection of a lower interest rates policy in the Throne Speech that was brought down yesterday?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has, no doubt unintentionally, misled the House. 1 never promised that when we formed the government we would lower interest rates.
1 was asked that question specifically, and I said I could not give that undertaking.


John Carnell Crosbie: Herb Gray gave it-three seats down.


John Edward Broadbent: Due to the courtesy of the Prime Minister, I think he misunderstood my question. 1 did not say in my question that the Prime Minister indicated he would lower interest rates; 1 indicated that he campaigned on a promise of lower interest rate policies than the Conservative party. He is shaking his head, but that is certainly what most Canadians understood.


RISING INTEREST RATES-EFFECT ON MORTGAGES
John Edward Broadbent: I should like to go to the
Minister of Finance with a final supplementary question. Considering that with reference to the then high interest rate of 14'/2 per cent, his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, said the effect of this was to crucify Canadians-with mortgage rates at 14'A per cent-how does the Minister of Finance view the current interest rate policy as it affects mortgages, which are now up to 17'/2 per cent?
Oral Questions
This means, for some 350,000 Canadians who have to renew mortgages this year, that their monthly bill will go up, on the average, $200 a month or almost $3,000 a year.


An hon. Member:: How about that?


John Edward Broadbent: Does the Minister of Finance consider that an acceptable position for the Government of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I understood the question was addressed to the Prime Minister. 1 have examined the number of home owners who may be renewing their mortgages this year, and it approximates 350,000. Of that number, it appears to me that a very large proportion can bear the regrettable increases in mortgage payments if we accept the customary ratio of debt to household income. Obviously, it would be an additional burden, but that proportion will be able to carry the burden.
There is a group that, because of the fact their incomes have not increased and because their equity in their homes has not increased, or the value has not appreciated, will face a particular difficulty, and it is to this relatively small group that we are addressing our attention, to ensure that they will be helped to get over this very difficult period.


INDUSTRY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: The late Herb Gray.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The rise in interest rates in Canada and the United States is of great concern to exporters in this country. In view of the fact that the Export Development Corporation quite recently raised about $250 million U.S. at an interest rate of 14 per cent to fund commitments made by that corporation at interest rates between 9 per cent and 10 per cent, are these high interest rates in any way affecting the ability of the Export Development Corporation to fulfil its mandate in support of Canadian export business?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of State (Trade) would want to deal with that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Reduce the rate, Herb.

April 15, 1980
Oral Questions HOUSING


PROGRAM TO ASSIST HOME OWNERS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Public Works with respect to the average Canadian home owner who has been totally abandoned in the Speech from the Throne and it is, perhaps, rather in spite of or despite the previous answer given by the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the average Canadian home owner who is renewing a mortgage today is faced with the spectre of mortgage payments which he just cannot afford, as well as the spectre of foreclosure-which is referred to in the Speech from the Throne-does the minister have a broad program of relief which is in any way comparable to the legislation which was introduced into the last Parliament by the Conservative party?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the Speech from the Throne, I believe, speaks for itself inasmuch as it addresses the problem of a group of home owners that we think are not a majority and probably are not the average home owner in this country.
As you know, shortly after becoming Minister of Public Works I addressed a group of home owners who came under a program which was introduced by the former Liberal government. Our intention was to address those first who needed help the most. I think it is fair to say to my friend that our philosophy and our objective in the program, of which we will announce specifics at a later date, will follow that same policy.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, while the Canadian home owner waits for this "later date", has the government any legislation which will in any way produce relief which is comparable to the $375 which Canadian home owners could have received in April or May after filing their income tax returns this month? That was under the legislation which we introduced and which was defeated by the Liberal party and its allies, the NDP, last fall.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, again for the sake of brevity, the short answer is no.


An hon. Member:: Thank you.


Paul James Cosgrove: No doubt the government's programs will be assisted by the opposition parties as the legislative program of the government generally goes forward.


PUBLIC SERVICE HIRING QUOTAS FOR WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, to move on to another topic, I would like to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board. As the minister responsible for implementing the affirmative action measures to improve the position of women in the public
service of Canada, measures that were promised in the Speech from the Throne-will the minister give his assurance that these measures will include hiring quotas for women at all levels of the public service?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: I thank the hon. member for that question, Madam Speaker. The affirmative action that we plan in Treasury Board is a broad-based affirmative action. It does not include, at this time, a quota system for hiring women in the public service.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, may I, then, turn to the minister responsible for the status of women, who is also the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and ask him if it is not his understanding that affirmative action to improve the condition of women in the public service of Canada in fact includes, among many other things, hiring quotas?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that at the present time, under the affirmative action program, there is the establishment of certain targets, which is quite a different concept from quotas, but there are targets that are established by each department and Crown corporation. These are registered with the Treasury Board and so monitored.
We are preparing a review of the affirmative action programs that affect both the public sector and the private sector. Submissions will be made to cabinet this spring when that review is completed, and the kind of enforcement actions that we think are most effective will be implemented at that time.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the minister assure the House that he has satisfied himself personally that there is nothing in the background, either from a legal or a moral point of view, of any of his ministers which would make it unsuitable for them to be members of his cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have followed the usual procedure when asking and inviting a minister to be part of cabinet: I have assured myself from a security point of view that there are absolutely no objections. From a moral point of view, I have relied upon the work of the ministers that they were not in any conflict of situation positions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to require his ministers to comply with conflict of interest guidelines? If so, when does he anticipate that particular compliance will be met, and when will he make a statement with respect to compliance by members of cabinet?
April 15, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have already discussed the guidelines that this government intends to apply with ministers. I have reviewed our previous guidelines which applied under the Liberal administration, I have looked at the guidelines which were brought in by the Conservative government, and I have attempted to take the best from both.
I will be announcing, certainly before a fortnight, exactly what the terms of those guidelines are. I will tell the House immediately that I have departed in some instances from the Conservative guidelines, particularly in the matter of applying them to spouses and children.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and it deals with interest rate levels. During the election campaign the minister expressed his concern and, indeed, he expressed his dissatisfaction with interest rate levels at that time. Since assuming office-as has been indicated by my colleague-interest rates have increased four times in five weeks. The throne speech yesterday recognized the problem but provided no direction and no relief.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, what immediate action can Canadian producers expect from the minister to enable producers to simply maintain their existing farm operations and to plan a portion of their 1980 crop?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure there are many agricultural programs which the hon. member discovered a while ago. There are even plans that make advance payments to farmers interest-free. 1 can name one in his area of Canada: soybean producers received $15 million interest-free. There are many other programs along that line. A portion of the interest rate of the Farm Credit Corporation, for example, was raised more during his term of office than during mine. There are many people in other parts of the commercial world of Canada who would love to have the Farm Credit Corporation rate of 13 per cent, which accounts for 70 per cent of all long-term agricultural loans made in Canada.
In many parts of Canadian agriculture we are much more fortunate than our competitors in the United States who compete in many markets with us. For example, they pay a much higher rate of interest, pay more for their fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and so on.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the minister while in opposition recognized the problem, but today when he is in office he wants to ignore it. Indeed, his first action as Minister of Agriculture was to raise the rate of Farm Credit Corporation loans to a record high.
Oral Questions
Is the minister going to stand by and propose nothing and do nothing while producers in this country liquidate land, equipment and other assets simply to have enough capital to plant a portion of the 1980 crop? What is he going to do? Will he just answer the question yes or no, if he can.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, there are many people in Canada looking for a yes or no answer. The answer to this question would be that the things I have been responsible for have meant a "yes" for many farmers. They will be able to stay in business. With the programs we are developing, when he sees them being developed in the next few weeks he will agree that yes, this minister does care and this government does care.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It deals with an important sector, that of family farms. Although the matter was omitted in the Speech from the Throne, will the minister reintroduce the measure included in our budget, which measure was promised, seconded and supported by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, allowing the deduction, for income tax purposes, of salaries paid the spouse who works on the farm? In addition, will that policy apply to non-incorporated businesses so that fishermen and several other businessmen might also benefit from it, as we planned in our budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is necessary to decide whether the present government is to proceed or not proceed with a number of proposals that were contained in the December 11 budget. Some of these proposals, like the one mentioned by the hon. member, were of a substantive character; others were of an important but technical nature.
Currently, I am examining the situation. I hope to advise the House as soon as possible what position I will want to take on these matters, including the one raised by the hon. gentleman.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him if he still intends to recommend to his colleague that the salary paid to the spouse who works on the family farm be allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I have every confidence that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will be a fair man.

April 15, 1980
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


JOBS AVAILABLE IN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce dealing with the ailing auto industry. Given that the Ford Motor Company are going to mothball their casting plant, with a loss of 900 jobs, and that they are going to cut, at Oakville, another 1,500 jobs-cut one shift completely out of the process-can the minister tell the House what conditions there were attached to the $68 million incentive that Ford received which guaranteed that Ford would maintain the job levels that were in Ontario and Canada at the time the moneys were advanced?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the contract between the federal government and the Ford Motor Company presently has a clause in it that this information will not be released without the consent of the company. I have asked the company to give its consent so that I can provide the information to the House. This is a matter of deep concern to me and my colleagues. I will be meeting with representatives of the UAW tomorrow to discuss this matter, and 1 will have further information for my hon. friend as soon as possible.


Ian Deans: Might I ask the minister what action he proposes to take to provide some kind of future for the 20,000 auto workers currently laid off, and the many others whose jobs are in jeopardy as a result of mismanagement both by Chrysler and Ford?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 have begun a series of talks with the presidents of the automobile manufacturing companies with a view to getting new commitments from them for additional activity in Canada, particularly in the area of job creation, research and development and production. Also, I met with the UAW and with the independent parts manufacturers. 1 intend to go on and have similar meetings with the presidents of the parent companies, with a view to beginning formal consultations under the provisions of the auto pact with the American government, with the objective of having a better operation of the pact in the interests of Canadian workers.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. The minister is no doubt aware that at the present time Federal Business Development Bank loans continue to be locked in for periods of five years. Such an arrangement is particularly unsatisfactory in light of the fact that the current interest rate on FBDB loans is 19 per cent.
My question to the minister is this: have any measures been recently introduced which will allow for an individual aspiring to obtain a new Federal Business Development Bank loan, or having to renegotiate an old one, to enter into an arrangement whereby the interest on the loan could be renegotiated on a more frequent basis? 1 trust the minister is acutely aware that the existing regulations governing the repayment of such loans have been the cause of considerable anguish for a large number of Canadians. It is grossly unfair that an individual-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please come to his question.
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I should like to remind him of what was indicated in the Speech from the Throne yesterday with regard to the Small Businesses Loans Act, that is we shall raise the maximum amount of the loans from $75,000 to $100,000. With regard to new measures or policies concerning the Federal Business Development Bank, my colleague, the President of the Privy Council will be tabling a bill in the next few days providing for the refinancing of the bank's equity funds. We shall also look into the proposal made by the hon. member.


Stan Darling: Has the minister taken, or does he propose to take, any steps with regard to the bill introduced by the previous government to provide the Federal Business Development Bank with $500 million capital? The bill failed to receive third reading in the previous Parliament.
1 am wondering if the minister has been advised about the numerous applicants who are going to be denied any additional money or applications. Even at these staggering rates there are a great many who will still want to negotiate Federal Business Development Bank loans.


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, in a few days the President of the Privy Council will table a bill partially based on the previous bill.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to the position of Speaker of this House. 1 think that all French Canadian men and women are quite pleased with your nomination.
My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Considering the drama in which some families
April 15, 1980

are involved, thousands of Cuban families would like to emigrate to Peru. Does Canada intend for humanitarian reasons to provide some leadership to solve that problem? If so, what steps will Canada take to assist those people?
[ English ]


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, i would like to thank the hon. member for the question and indicate to the House that the government of Peru has contacted a number of governments, including our own, asking for assistance in the resettlement of "asylees" from Cuba and those who are presently located in the Peruvian embassy.
At the present moment they are in unusual circumstances because they do not fit the strict international definition of refugees; but considering the very severe suffering that is going on, and deprivation that is taking place, the Government of Canada has indicated to the Peruvian authorities and to Cuban authorities that we are prepared to take, at this point, up to 300 "asylees" from that area and also to provide federal financial assistance in resettlement programs when necessary. We are also prepared to consider further measures once the situation clarifies itself, but we are taking that initial step.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him if he would announce today that Canada will support the United States in the Olympic boycott.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member probably heard us make our position clear on this matter during the campaign.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is it? Come off it, Pierre; get your skis on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We believe that the invasion of Afghanistan is something which not only should be condemned by our country and like-minded countries, but we also believe it is very important to found our policy on the vote of 104 nations at the United Nations which on January 14 condemned the invasion of Afghanistan.
Our policy on the Olympics and on other matters has not just been to take stands of our own, and in this matter I have indicated in a recent letter to President Carter that we would support him in the measures he announced and that we would join him in those measures. However, it is also important for us to bring other countries along so that we maintain this front of 104 nations or as many nations as possible to continue in our condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Oral Questions


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, for a moment 1 thought I was going to have to say that silence may not be golden; it might be just plain yellow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister now if he can tell us how many of the 104 nations he has coming on stream to give that support to the United States when they so desperately need it, as does the world.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 might point out to the hon. member that it does not take much courage just to announce that you are going to boycott the Olympics.


An hon. Member:: Try it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And it would not have much effect, either, on the presence of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is perhaps a more difficult policy, but a more important one, to ensure that this united front of nations against that invasion be maintained in as large a proportion as possible, and that is what we are working at.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who is the spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board in this House. In view of the fact that the decision by the Carter administration to put an embargo on the shipment of grain to the Soviet Union has already hurt the Canadian farmer to the extent of 80 cents per bushel since December 28, 1979, will the minister tell us if this government plans to follow the policy suggested by the previous administration to make up these losses to farmers so that the nation as a whole-not just grain producers-will pay for the effects of this embargo?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, this is a very debatable subject, but my information and knowledge at this time is that western farmers are not being affected by the policy that Canada has had with respect to the export of grains to the Soviet Union.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, in the light of that answer, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it this government's intention to continue the policy brought about by the previous administration to support the grain embargo on additional sales of grain to the Soviet Union? If so, will the Prime Minister assure this House that grain producers will not be the only victims who will have to bear the brunt of that policy?

April 15, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed, Madam Speaker, that is our policy.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the uncertainty regarding income tax issues in the north with respect to the fringe benefits traditionally granted to northern residents, will the minister assure this House that this government will bring in an amendment to the Income Tax Act, or a ways and means motion to give validity retroactively to the present moratorium?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, we have placed a moratorium on the collection of taxation on northern benefits until January, 1981. That applies for the taxation year 1980. We are looking at the year 1979. We have stopped assessments on the year 1979. Officials are now working to clarify exactly how this moratorium will apply, and I am hoping I can make a comment within the next week or so.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House what the date of the announcement will be as to whether there is going to be any pay-out under the Agricultural Stabilization Act for the beef and hog industry.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the hon. member is well aware that by law we have to make a payment for the pork industry. We may make one for the beef industry. That has not been decided. But before the end of April I hope that an announcement can be made for the pork industry.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment in his capacity as having jurisdiction over forestry. The forest industry is one of the first industries which suffers as a result of a massive downturn in economies and high interest rates.
and thousands of forest workers are unemployed at the present time.
The question is whether it has occurred to the minister to discuss with his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and his provincial counterparts the prospect of engaging this idle work force in the task of forest renewal, planting and restocking millions of acres of unproductive forest land.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, we as a government do, indeed, attach considerable importance to the revitalization of the forest industry and, indeed, the continuation of the thrust which has been developed by the past two ministers responsible for forestry. I spoke about that subject a few days ago, and I would be happy to send the hon. member my speech. In any case, I will take up the suggestion he has made to me and discuss it with my colleague.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I have read the minister's speech and 1 want to compliment him on his commitment to follow the policy which the former government laid down for a forestry strategy for Canada. Can he tell the House whether it is his intention immediately to give us the name of the assistant deputy minister who should be appointed to restore the position of the Canadian forestry in the public service?


John (Moody) Roberts: That matter is under very active consideration. 1 cannot give the hon. member a name at the present time, but 1 hope to announce one in the very near future.


PRIVACY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, whom 1 should like to congratulate on his appointment. The Solicitor General stated recently that he has made up his mind that the RCMP need the power to open first-class mail, and that he is "rushing to cabinet" to bring in legislation to grant this power-a very serious interference with the right to privacy of Canadians.
Will the Solicitor General assure the House that he will take no action on this matter at least until the McDonald commission has reported; and will he tell the House what evidence he has, if any, to support the granting of this serious power to the RCMP?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: May 1 thank the hon. member for his good wishes and also for the opportunity to correct the record. I am not rushing legislation forward; I am quite content to wait for the recommendations of the McDonald commission, and I am particularly pleased to indicate that, as hon. members know, the McDonald commission will
April 15, 1980

be making its core report by the end of the summer, and its final report and be winding up, if they can maintain their schedule, by the end of this year.
As to the evidence of the desirability and the need for letter-opening under controlled circumstances and with proper safeguards, I hope to be able within the next few days to make the kind of presentation that hon. members would like on that subject.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is to the right hon. Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, who is, 1 am sure, as concerned as we are on this side of the House about upholding the rule of law. Will the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to recommend to his Minister of Justice the prosecution of those members of the RCMP who have authorized the breaking of the law, section 43 of the Post Office Act, in the illegal opening of first-class mail?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 will be happy to discuss this matter with the Minister of Justice. I am sure he will want to follow the practice of our previous government; that is to say, that whenever we have evidence of any breaking of the law by an RCMP officer, through the McDonald commission or in any other way, we would communicate that information forthwith to the attorney general of a province whose responsibility it was to enforce the criminal law. I am sure the Minister of Justice will continue to do the same thing.


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order, about a 30-second point of order concerning the matter of motions under Standing Order 43 in general and which is brought to my mind by the motion 1 introduced on the subject of Mr. Kenneth Taylor earlier this afternoon. 1 am asking respectfully for clarification from the Chair in regard to one specific point about Standing Order 43.
1 was under the distinct impression that the slight negative shaking of the head by such a person as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not constitute a legitimate "no" and that an audible verbal "no" must be heard before a motion of that nature can be ruled out of order. If it is in order, I would like to ask if I can have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Standing Order 43 so that members of the House will have an opportunity to prove specifically that the old saying that a prophet is without honour in his own land does not apply to Mr. Kenneth Taylor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, may I say on that point of order, since the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) has mentioned my
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
name, that I can assure him I said nothing. But I can inform him of what was going on in my mind at that point, and this may guide you. Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Subliminal perception.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have here an example of where a good motion might be proposed by a member on either side of the House and at times the government might say "no" to that motion, not because it disagrees with the substance of the motion but perhaps because we do not find it opportune to discuss the motion at that particular time; or, alternatively, the motion calls for very intricate considerations, and that is the case in this matter.
The Order of Canada, I happen to know-and I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) knows the same-was set up so as to ensure that it would be detached from the political process, so as to ensure that the Order of Canada would be given upon the direction of a committee chaired by the Governor General and his representative, the Chief Justice of Canada, in a way that politicians in particular, but also other pressure groups, would not be able to command upon whom the order would devolve. I feel that before issuing an order from the House to that very select committee chaired by the Governor General and the Chief Justice we should consider whether or not it is within our prerogative to do so. I would submit that it is not at this time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to say on this point of order that I would not at all contest the views and the testimony put forward by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I suggest that he would do well to reread the motion which was put forward. He would find that the motion which was presented to this House simply suggested that there be a respectful request by this chamber to the Governor General to consider the matter. If he would reread that motion instead of reacting automatically to motions put forward by members whom he might not personally like, the procedures of this House could progress.


Madam Speaker:: From where I sit in this chair I am more aware of the noes that I hear-and I did hear some noes. Therefore, the time for presenting motions under Standing Order 43 having expired, we will now proceed to orders of the day.

April 15, 1980
24__ ________________ _	____ _	___
The Address-Mr. Clark



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I am tabling a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, and I request that you designate an order of the day for consideration thereof.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 14, 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.
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in beginning let me repeat formally, now that your election is an accomplished fact, the congratulations of hon. members of my party and underline the respect which we hold for you. Let me express on behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition that we look forward to working closely and co-operatively with you in ensuring that this House functions effectively and democratically and serves both the national interest and the national will.
[ Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote). She made an eloquent speech yesterday and I hope she will often have the opportunity to address the House.
1 would add as well my congratulations to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) who follows distinguished shoes into this House. I will say to him that I did not agree with every nuance of what he said, but he said it well. This House is a place where positions should be clearly stated and disagreements occasionally recorded.
Also I think it is appropriate for me as I begin to express the admiration which 1 know all of us feel for the manner in which Their Excellencies, the Governor General and Mrs. Schreyer, have conducted themselves. Since this Parliament last met, they both have been afflicted with hospitalization, and yet that has not at all deterred them from the very effective carrying out of their important responsibilities to the nation.
The Speech from the Throne indicates that Canadians expect much of this Parliament. Let me be a little more precise. Canadians expect a great deal of this government. As
1 have noted elsewhere, our problem when we were a government was that we had a program but not a majority necessary to implement that program and to get it through. This government has a clear majority. It has a long association with office and it has no excuse for delay in facing its full responsibilities and in dealing directly with the problems and the potential of the country.
I must say that 1 regret the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not show more courage and more imagination in choosing a cabinet. Some of his old friends deserve to retire and some of his old prejudices have kept from cabinet members like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan) and most particularly l'honorable depute de Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) who could have been of real service at this particular point in the life of this country in bringing this government closer to the mainstream of modern thought in the province of Quebec.
Despite the cabinet's collective weakness and weariness, I want to congratulate the members of the ministry on the honour and responsibility bestowed upon them. I wish them well and I give them notice now that this party will co-operate in the passage of constructive measures and will expect the government to accept its responsibility to deal quickly and honestly with the business of Canada.
We are at a time of crisis in Canada on several fronts. The government will be serving the nation badly if it pretends that only the referendum is important, or if it lets the interests of Canada suffer because of the ideology or the inflexibility of certain ministers. When speaking of ideology, I am thinking particularly of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), and when speaking of inflexibility I am thinking of its champion, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). We have urgent problems concerning the unity of this nation, problems that were caused in no small measure by the past refusal of the Prime Minister to respond to the changing nature of this nation. I will return to that question later in my remarks, but let me serve now notice on the government that the importance of the referendum is no excuse for delaying action on economic policy, no excuse for delaying action on energy policy and no excuse for avoiding our international obligations. Indeed, delay in dealing with those acute problems may very well aggravate the tensions which now exist in the Canadian family.
First let me deal today with economic policy. Economists are predicting that our economy may have its lowest growth rate this year since 1954. A change in circumstances and the electoral commitments of the present government will add at least $4.5 billion to the budgetary deficit which was forecast by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), when he brought down a budget in December. The attitude of the government toward the private sector is at best ambiguous.
The Speech from the Throne makes no mention at all of the economic charter signed by this Prime Minister and ten provincial premiers in 1978, an economic charter which, among
April 15, 1980

other things, specifically described "an expanding private sector as the major impetus for growth in the Canadian economy". But the throne speech and individual statements by economic ministers raise the spectre of new government agencies, new government intervention and new government costs.
Interest rates keep going up; the rate of foreclosures and bankruptcies has almost doubled in the last year. The present government voted against the budget or the economic realism which we introduced last year. They knew in December what they were against. They should know in April what economic policy they stand for. In our judgment they have an obligation to bring in a full budget at the earliest possible opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance today, in the single most direct statement he has made since he became Minister of Finance, and indeed probably in the single most direct statement he will make in his tenure, said; "No, we will not bring in a budget before May". What he apparently does not understand is that no one else in Canada whose decisions depend upon the planning and an understanding of the direction of the Government of Canada can plan until he knows the economic direction and the economic plans of the Government of Canada. The private sector cannot plan, provinces cannot plan, individuals cannot plan, investors cannot plan.
He cannot blame events. He cannot say that they were not prepared. Because they knew in December what they were against, they must know now what they are for. His deliberate delay is causing an intolerable burden for all of those Canadians who count on certainty in order to make their own plans so that they can make the nation grow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Just so that the minister will understand what it means, every day of delay creates more uncertainty. Uncertainty is not some abstraction; uncertainty in the climate of the Canadian economy today means that it creates the risk of more bankruptcies and more foreclosures. The minister was congratulating himself on how few Canadians face foreclosure today. With his policies, with his delay, that number will increase. That is an inexcusable action on his part. It means more unemployment every day that he delays. It means less growth every day that he delays.
I understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) wants to have economic policy go one way, in a spending direction, and that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) may well want economic policy to go another way. But it is the duty of the government to resolve those differences, not to succumb to them. They knew enough in December to vote against a budget which gave a sense of economic direction and realism to the country. They must have known what they stood for when they voted against our budget. They have an obligation now to spell that out in a full budgetary and economic statement to the people of
The Address-Mr. Clark
Canada, and to stop delaying, creating unemployment, creating bankruptcies and forcing foreclosures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Breau:: That debate is over.


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear from the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).


An hon. Member:: Overlooked again.


Charles Joseph Clark: Overlooked again in the selection of ministers. Indeed, I think he must hold the record in this House for being overlooked in the selection of ministers.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis)?


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, I did not mean to slight the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). But the hon. member for Gloucester, whose voice is obviously of so little influence in the cabinet that he cannot become a member of it, has made the interjection here that that debate is over. One of the points which must be made and must be understood by all of us who respect the integrity of the House of Commons is that it is simply not acceptable for someone like the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce knowingly to go forward and make an undertaking that he would resign if interest rates went up, and then once he had secured the power that undertaking was designed to achieve, to go back on his word, to break his word.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I say to the hon. member that that debate is far from over, because that debate has to do with the fundamental question of honesty in this country and of integrity in the conduct of public business.
I was proud during the election campaign to stand for a policy that was an honest policy and that reflected the integrity of a government that was prepared to deal directly with the problems the nation faces, and I will be pleased during the next election campaign to go into the constituency of Gloucester if-
[Translation\
If the hon. member can be selected again by his party. [English]
-and to repeat again the importance of having a national government and a national party that will stand for honesty, that will say the same things before the election that it says after and not carry on in a way that has been characterized by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) who said he would resign before the election and then, after he had won office, broke his word to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Clark


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me deal with the specific question of interest rates because the references in the throne speech to interest rate policy were cold comfort to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are trying to cope with record high mortgage and borrowing costs. 1 am tempted to take a little more time this afternoon and review the hypocrisy on this issue of the Liberal party, but I will leave that for the people of Canada to judge every time they hear members of this administration speak.
Interest rate policy has changed in Canada in three ways since February 18. First, rates have gone up, and they have gone up faster during the past two months than they did in our nine months as a government. Second, while our government and our minister of finance faced up squarely and honestly to our responsibility as the ultimate managers of monetary policy, this government and minister of finance prefer to hide behind the gimmick of floating rates; a float which it will not even let the standing committee of this House of Commons examine; a float about which they refuse to let questions begin to be directed immediately to the governor of the Bank of Canada who had expressed reservations about that policy when a parliamentary committee was struck by our government; a float which is nothing but a gimmick to try to pass the responsibility for interest rates away from the government, where it resides, to the governor of the Bank of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: Third, and most serious of all, while we brought forward specific measures that would cushion the impact of unavoidably high rates of interest on Canadians, this government is prepared to let the great majority of home owners, farmers and small businessmen burn while Allan MacEachen fiddles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We proposed a major program of mortgage and property tax credits which, even in its first year, would have held to about 12 per cent the effective cost of an average mortgage renewed at current rates. The Liberals and members of the new coalition-the attempted coalition to our left, the NDP-voted against that measure. In its place, according to the throne speech, this government offers only the very vague promise of some kind of assistance that will be limited to those who have to "renegotiate existing mortgages", and who face "the spectre of foreclosure", to quote the Speech from the Throne.
What this government is offering, having cried such crocodile tears over interest rates in December, is minimal aid to home owners who literally have their backs against the wall, but nothing at all for Canadians whose current mortgage costs without any renegotiation already are too high. It is offering nothing for Canadians who have had to renegotiate their mortgages in recent months at abnormally high rates, and nothing for the thousands of Canadians who want to buy their first home but simply cannot afford today's mortgage costs. And this, ladies and gentlemen, from a government which
created and literally pushed on to the people of Canada an AHOP program which is causing so much grief to so many Canadians and which stands today as probably the worst conceived and administered housing program ever inflicted upon this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That, Madam Speaker, is their helping hand to home owners, the helping hand of this government which is so concerned, it says, about injustice. It talks against it and then it imposes injustice on the people of Canada.
What is there for farmers and small businessmen? Again our government had brought forward in its budget a concrete measure to help those Canadians; a small business development bond that would have allowed small businesses and farmers to borrow up to $500,000 at roughly half the current market rates. Again the Liberals and members of the coalition-those two parties-voted that measure down. What does the government offer in its place? It offers a routine increase in loan ceilings under the Small Businesses Loans Act and under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, a proposal which offers small businessmen and farmers virtually no assistance where they need it and virtually no assistance in meeting the abnormally high cost of money.
Let me say one final word about economic policy, Madam Speaker. As was often the case with the Prime Minister during the election campaign, in yesterday's speech he tried to have it both ways in regard to the budgetary deficit. The government says it is committed to reducing that deficit but-the persistent "but"-not at the cost of all the new spending programs and new government agencies it wants to create. That is a familiar Liberal line. In fact, we heard that line in every budget for 11 years while the Liberal government ran this country into near bankruptcy.
I say to hon. members opposite that Canada simply cannot afford any more of that kind of irresponsibility. They will not reduce inflation-and surely that has to be the number one economic objective-unless and until they are prepared to bring government finances into balance and ease the inordinate claim the federal treasury has been making on the financial resources of this country.
I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to heed the words of his principal adviser, the governor of the Bank of Canada, who says in his annual report:
-if large fiscal deficits are continued when the economy has little more effective capacity to increase output they will discourage such investment... If we in Canada want to reduce our international deficit on current account and thus our use of foreign savings we shall have to pay careful attention to the rate at which domestic savings are being absorbed by the fiscal deficits of our governments.
Perhaps it is because of advice such as that that the Minister of Finance so resolutely refuses to allow the Parliament of Canada to question the governor of the Bank of Canada.
[Translationj
Madam Speaker, in connection with energy matters, the energy policy of the government shows no sense of urgency.
April 15, 1980

Apparently they have no idea of the precarious position of Canada which so much depends on foreign oil, those oil supplies and prices which are indeed beyond our control. The energy self-sufficiency which we proposed as a government is not only a praiseworthy aim but it is absolutely necessary for national security and economic development. Among all nations of the world we have a unique opportunity to become self-sufficient in the field of energy.
The Speech from the Throne does not give much specific information about the position of the government on energy prices. Price is a matter of dollars and cents and it is high time that the government disclose to the Canadian people the cost of energy not only for this year but for the next three or four years.

It is time too, Madam Speaker, that the government comes clean with Canadians over its exact intentions in regard to the oil import compensation program. Again we have a reference in the Speech from the Throne, as we did during the election campaign, to phasing out the oil import compensation program. That program is going to cost the federal treasury at least $2.6 billion during the current fiscal year, and at current trends it will almost double by 1985. This is the program that ensures a single price across the country and subsidizes consumption in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
If the government intends to phase that program out, as it promised yesterday in the Speech from the Throne and as the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign, then who will pay the billions of dollars in extra costs? I see that there is present a member from Cape Breton Island, an area where there is a heavy dependence on imported oil. Will it be the people of Cape Breton who will be chosen and selected to pay that extra burden because they elected a Liberal government? Who will pay that extra $2.6 billion, a figure which will increase dramatically between now and 1985? Will it be a special burden imposed upon consumers in Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, or is it the intention to spread that price across the entire country so that the price every Canadian pays for oil will go up much more dramatically than was proposed in the budget brought down last December by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West?
The government's so-called blended price, from what is known about it, would take an increase this year of at least $6 a barrel in domestic prices to offset the current cost of imports. The party opposite ran against a $4 increase, and perhaps they are planning a $6 increase for Canadians. If they wish to hide it this year they will dump it on the backs of Canadians next year. We in this country have a right to know the details. We have a right to have the minister of energy tell the truth to this Parliament and the people of Canada as to exactly what will be the price of oil and exactly how they intend to achieve that price.
The Address-Mr. Clark
Let me turn for a moment to the question of international affairs. In the throne speech the government proclaims that one of its basic goals is to ensure that Canada plays what it calls a vigorous role in international affairs. It seems to me that the government exhausted all of its vigour in simply stating that goal, because what follows in the speech shows nothing that is vigorous or even encouraging, except for the welcome confirmation that it intends to carry through the initiative started by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), to strengthen the disarmament component in the Department of External Affairs.
The 1980s, Madam Speaker, will not be an easy decade in international affairs. It seems certain to be a period of virtually continuous regional instability. The world economy is fragile, and the intentions and the options of the Third World have hardly begun to be defined. Unhappily as well, there is every indication that relations between the super powers are deteriorating.
This is not a time when nations like Canada will have the luxury of flirting with soft-headed notions of neutrality. A starting point for Canadian foreign policy in the 1980s must be to know ourselves, to know, understand and respect the values and the goals of this democratic nation, and to make sure that the world knows exactly whom we regard as our friends and where we stand on basic issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We in this party are under no illusions whatsoever as to who are our friends. Our principal ally remains the United States of America, not because of the accident of geography, but because of the act of sharing basic goals and basic ideals. There are times and there are issues that go to the very heart of one's values, one's beliefs and one's friendships. We believe that now is one of those times.
That is why we responded as we did in Tehran. That is why we supported as a government, and continue to support as a party, a boycott of the Moscow Olympics. That is why I am appalled at the reluctance of this government to show any leadership or, what is worse, to show any conviction on the Olympic question or, indeed, in response to President Carter's request for additional pressure on Iran to free the hostages. We on this side of the House do not believe your real friends hide in the crowd until it is safe to stick their heads up.
I know that the Prime Minister has strong personal views on this matter. He has expressed them in the Soviet Union, and he also expressed them the night of his victory when he equated our relation with the Soviet Union and the United States of America. I suspect that it is the very influence and strength of his personal views, particularly given, for the first time in my recollection, a foreign minister who sits on the second bench of Parliament, a foreign minister who is a puppet on a string for the Prime Minister of Canada. I suspect that that is one of the reasons this government has refused to allow a full and open review of Canadian foreign policy.
As the House knows, we as a government were ready and prepared to have that kind of review because we believe that

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Clark
Canadians should participate in deciding who our friends are in the world and what our stance should be in the world. This government takes an opposite position. They have stopped that review. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands and others in this party will conduct that open public foreign policy review across this country so that even if the government shuts its ears to the views of Canadians as to what should be the foreign policy of Canada, there will be an opportunity in this Parliament for members, and flowing from this Parliament for Canadians, to speak their minds about who are the friends of Canada and what should be our foreign policy.
Naturally, Madam Speaker, there are some items in the Speech from the Throne, to the degree that we can find their detail, which we on this side of the House can commend and support. We look forward to seeing the detail of the proposal with relation to pensions coming forward. We understand the campaign commitment of the party opposite was to increase the pension of every eligible senior citizen in the country, and we look forward to that measure being realized. I can say that if the measure proposed does correspond with the promise that was made, we can certainly support that measure in this House and we will support it expeditiously. If the government sets a deadline of July 1 and is serious about it, then certainly they will get very real co-operation from this side of the House in achieving that goal.
There are some other proposals which we can support because in so many cases, at least on the basis of the details in the Speech from the Throne, they appear to be measures that carry through to conclusion policies which we ourselves began as a government. 1 will reserve my approval for the freedom of information bill until 1 have had a chance to see it in detail, because this Parliament and the people of Canada have been misled so often by the Liberal party on the question of freedom of information that we cannot approve a bill until we see it.
We would prefer to have brought back the bill which we introduced. In any event, we hope that the bill this government introduces will be a bill that is faithful to the two main principles of our legislation, principles which we regard as absolutely fundamental. First, that exceptions to the general rule that all information is public should be narrow and specific; and, secondly, that there can be recourse to an independent tribunal in cases of dispute between a minister and Parliament or the people of Canada.
I do not want to see the idea emerge in legislation that was mooted so often in the Liberal party, that there should be some right residing in a minister or a public servant to stand between the right of the people to information and the interest of the government in keeping that information private.
1 assume, again subject to seeing the actual legislation, that a number of other specific initiatives mentioned in the Speech from the Throne carry forward work which was begun by our government. That list would appear to include a meat import law, legislation concerning the transport of dangerous goods, improved privacy legislation, better support for the handicapped and a comprehensive program to improve employment opportunities for women, starting with the public service itself.
1 note that there are proposals for a policy paper and a conference on pensions. I should just say in passing, Madam Speaker, that 1 am a little alarmed that while our government took every step it could, starting with a committee investigation into interest rates, to make full use of Parliament, there is already the evidence that this government is deflecting away to other agencies questions and inquiries which should be carried on in Parliament. They will not let Parliament look into interest rates as our government let Parliament look into interest rates; they will not let Parliament look into pension policy as our government proposed to let Parliament look into pension policy. Instead, they are taking matters that should be the concern of Parliament and putting them up to other institutions.
We fear that what we are seeing again is a manifestation of the Prime Minister's old idea that members of the House of Commons are mere nobodies, with perhaps the refinement proposed by the new House leader that we are nobodies who should work only four days a week. We think we are somebodies; we think there is a role and a right for members of Parliament, and we believe that members of Parliament should work a full week and not goof off on Fridays!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I also assume that the reference to an expanded community services employment program reflects the work that was begun by the former minister of employment and immigration.
There is one other major matter that I want to touch today, Madam Speaker. It concerns the fundamental unity and, indeed, the future of this unique nation. As we know, the government of Quebec has published a proposal for sovereignty-association, a proposal that is absolutely incompatible with the idea of federalism and, consequently, is absolutely unacceptable to members of this party and, I believe, of this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I believe it essential that we take the opportunity to repeat that the concept of association is also unacceptable to the public of Canada outside the province of Quebec. That position has been made very clear by virtually every provincial premier, most recently by the Premier of Saskatchewan in an eloquent and forceful speech-that there should be no question at all in the minds of Quebeckers that the rest of Canada is not interested in sovereignty-association.
The Premier of the province of Quebec announced today the date for the referendum as May 20. He is seeking support-


Mr. Duclos:: Did he consult with you?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, he did not consult with me; did he consult with you?
April 15, 1980


An hon. Member:: Does anyone consult with the hon. members?


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 understand the difficulties of living in the fourth row after how many years in the House of Commons?


Louis Duclos: Six years.


Charles Joseph Clark: Six years. I consequently understand the hon. member's interest in consultation, particularly when he is a member of a party that engages so rarely in consultation with its private members.
If I might return to the question of national unity, free from heckling from Quebec federalists, let me say that the Premier of Quebec is seeking-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Does the hon. member want me, perhaps because I come from western Canada, not to address the question of national unity? Is that the point of his frequent interventions? If the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) has a point, he might want to get on the Speaker's list and indicate why it is that he wants to stop me as Leader of the Opposition from speaking on questions relating to national unity here in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The point of the referendum is that the Premier of Quebec and his government are seeking authority to negotiate with Ottawa on the basis of the document that has been published. This party, as members of the House know, is represented formally and strongly on the committee for a No, represented by prominent Progressive Conservatives from the province of Quebec. But 1 make the point to the House that the referendum in Quebec is a symptom of much deeper problems in the Canadian family, problems that are most acute now in the province of Quebec but that are acute and growing elsewhere in the country. Our federal system needs reform and indeed, Madam Speaker, the conventional view of the nature of this nation needs rethinking.
There have been several proposals for constitutional change to achieve a situation that would better reflect the Canadian federal reality. Claude Ryan has published one proposal. Various provinces have published elements of other proposals. Our government was preparing proposals and we are continuing that work in opposition.
It is far too early to say, Madam Speaker, which of those proposals will prove to be right. But we know one way that will not work, and that is the kind of insensitivity which was practised for 1 1 years by the Trudeau government and which, on the early evidence, is being renewed at least with regard to western Canada.
During its brief life as a government since February 18, this government has taken a series of actions which western Canadians are bound to interpret as being hostile to that part of Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
The Address-Mr. Clark
acted unilaterally to reduce the price of tar sands oil, when both courtesy and common sense required consultation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is talking about breaking the agreement that our government achieved, an agreement that after years of talk and delay would have finally got facilities at Prince Rupert that could speed the movement of prairie grain to world markets. There is talk of bypassing elected members of Parliament from the west. There is talk of moving the grain transport co-ordinator from Winnipeg to Ottawa and making him subject to the minister responsible for the wheat board. There is talk of speeding up metric conversion, despite the opposition to that program that is known to exist in that region.
I confess, Madam Speaker, that I am both puzzled and alarmed by that series of actions by the Trudeau government. 1 am alarmed because it would be an error-a fundamental error-for anyone in any part of this country, and most particularly in this House of Commons, to underestimate the depth, extent and strength of frustration with the federal system and the federal electoral system that is felt now in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is dangerous, foolhardy and could jeopardize the federalist cause for this government to continue to take actions which are seen as hostile in that region, given that attitude which they should know exists.
I am puzzled. Madam Speaker, because it makes no sense to me that a government, which argues in Quebec about the sensitivity of the federal system, should act with so little sensitivity in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As we in this party know from our own experience, Madam Speaker, when you are elected to government by part of the country, there is an acute obligation to reflect the whole country. The present Prime Minister has made the easy gesture in naming to cabinet senators to represent communities where his party is weak, even though he condemned me for starting that practice.
I hear him say he did not. He does not recognize the Francophone community of Ontario and indeed the Francophone community of Canada as a community. I do. 1 say to him, and I underline the point, that it takes more than senators so solve this problem. Our government sought to understand and repair the frustration that Quebec felt with the government in Ottawa, and our success was reflected, among other ways, by a decline in support for separatism during the period there was a Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What troubles me, Madam Speaker, is that the Trudeau government is making no evident attempt to understand or to reflect western Canada; and I say simply to the
30

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Clark
Prime Minister that if he truly wants to maintain and strengthen this federal and diverse nation, that attitude must change. The place for it to start to change will be in the policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the policies of the Minister of Transport and the policies of other ministers who, too often, have shown an arrogant insensitivity to the concerns and requirements of that part of the country.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians have a right to demand proof that this government have in fact relinquished their former attitudes, that they renounced their commitment to the status quo and that they finally have understood the concept of renewed federalism. Quebeckers and Canadians have a right to demand that the federal government's good intentions not be limited to the referendum period. They have a right to demand that after the referendum the Canadian government enter into a genuine dialogue with their provincial partners. In my view, all Canadians can still be convinced of this, including those who will be called upon to vote at the referendum if this government publicly recognize that Canada and Quebec are at a crossroads and that we now have an opportunity to renew our federation and put Canada on the road to the twenty-first century.
And Quebeckers and Canadians can still be convinced if this government finally accept the legitimacy of regional drives, if they stop perceiving them as mere signs of regional isolationism.
Why should we fear the emergence of regional identities? Quite the opposite, we should be proud of these, because they reflect constructive forces on which to build tomorrow s Canada.
Madam Speaker, the time has come to stop treating the just demands of provinces as pure bickering. Moreover, this government must be aware that the process in which Canada must engage is much more than a war of words, placards and propaganda. The issue's dimensions are of a fundamental nature. The question is whether or not Canada is ready to proceed on the road to renewed federalism, whether Canada will show through concrete actions that it is proceeding in that direction, whether the federal government will treat provinces as equal partners.
The government 1 led understood that and that is why in the short time we were in power we established a system of good relations with the provinces, we solved certain controversial issues and particularly we set in motion the process for a renewed federation.
A task force was set up to prepare the federal government's plan for a renewed federation and its terms of reference were made public. Even if we no longer have the same means, the work undertaken last year by Senator Arthur Tremblay is still continuing and it is my firm determination as Leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party to submit to the people of Canada a comprehensive plan for a genuine renewal of the Canadian federation, because it is in renewed federalism that lies the key to our collective future, the key to the future of Canada as well as the future of Quebec. Indeed, it is because my party and 1 believe deeply in that that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada joined the No forces to fight the proposed sovereignty-association being promoted by the Parti Quebecois.
In the context of the referendum debate, our position has always been clear and unequivocal. We are for the renewal of the Canadian federation. But, Madam Speaker, the no of the Progressive Conservative Party has a real positive meaning- to say no is to say yes to the change we set in motion, yes to the renewal of the Canadian federation, yes to the future.
Madam Speaker, the Canada which Quebeckers are being asked to reject by the proponents of sovereignty-association, that Canada no longer exists. There was a time when Quebeckers were the only ones calling for a constitutional change. Today, the change is being called for by all provinces. There was a time when out of necessity only French-speaking members were bilingual. Today, that has changed radically. English-speaking members from all areas of this country, from Kingston, Stratford, Vancouver, Toronto, Woodstock, Oshawa and even Alberta, have chosen to learn French.
There was a time when it might have been a disadvantage to be French-speaking in the public service or in business. Today, that is not a disadvantage, it is an advantage, and that is another change in Canadian life.
Madam Speaker, every community changes, evolves, becomes surer of itself as it grows. Quebec has evolved dramatically since the quiet revolution. So has Canada. Quebeckers have realized the many changes that have occurred in their province since 1960. The same thing happened in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland. One must also keep in mind that in this vast country, with its oil, its natural resources, its cultural diversity and its open spaces, change has only begun and that change offers us all unique opportunities.
Of course, these opportunities exist throughout the country and they can be rejected through fear of the future. But what would have happened to Antonine Maillet if she had been afraid of the future and had refused to publish her works? She would certainly not have been awarded the Prix Goncourt. What would have happened to Paul Desmarais if he had refused to have confidence in the future? He would certainly not have transformed a small family business in Sudbury into a great financial empire in Montreal.
What would have happened to Gilles Villeneuve if he had not had confidence in his talent and had not agreed to compete? He would certainly not have become a champion racer. When you have confidence in your potential, why confine your future within overly narrow boundaries? When you are proud
April 15, 1980

of yourself, why be afraid? When you are a Quebecker with all the resources and the vitality of an original culture, why limit your horizons and refuse to build a vast, youthful and prosperous country?
We have in all of the questions that face this House of Commons, a House of Commons in which there is a majority government, urgent obligations upon us all. If the government accepts, as 1 hope it will, the view of Parliament that we tried to introduce during our period as a government, that initiative should flow from all corners of this House and should not be confined to the ministerial benches, two results will ensue. One, there will be a greater richness, variety and accuracy of initiatives on which this House can rely. Second, there will be greater opportunity for the rich resources of knowledge, background, information and instinct that comes here from all corners of the land.
I hope that that lead which we established will be followed by this government. However, even with that, the major obligation rests with the occupants of the treasury benches. They are the ones who control the business of government. They are the ones to bring forward budgets or who, as today, refuse to bring forward budgets when they should be brought forward.
There arc urgent matters before this nation. There should be urgent matters before this House. Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne published yesterday indicated no sense of urgency about the economic crisis facing Canadians. It indicated no sense of urgency about the realization of the goal of energy self-sufficiency for this nation. It indicated no sense of the possibilities and the responsibilities available to Canada in the larger world community. For that reason, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):

-that the following be added:
This House regrets to inform your Excellency that your advisors have failed
(1)	To assure Parliament that a full budgetary presentation will be made before the end of May;
(2)	To provide adequate assistance to home owners, farmers and small businessmen against high interest rates;
(3)	To attach any real importance to reducing the federal deficit as an essential measure to combat inflation;
(4)	To offer policies to promote energy self-sufficiency; and
(5)	To provide effective leadership in international affairs, including unequivocal support for a boycott of the Moscow Olympics.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 can only subscribe to the feelings expressed in French by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) at the end of his speech. He pointed out, and we share his opinion, how important it is for the fulfilment of our country not only to have access to both official languages but also to have a Parliament and a population that are increasingly
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
anxious to take advantage of that enrichment which is bilingualism. I would have hoped that as far as his part of the country is concerned, the Leader of the Official Opposition would have at least attributed to us the goodwill he would like us to attribute to him as far as Francophones are concerned. I regret that, in the examples he gave he wanted to indicate that our government denied how important it was to work toward unity in this country and understand as much as possible the yearnings, ideals and fears of the various regions of the country. He failed to mention that our government has tried as much as his party while it was in power or in the opposition to find a solution to that serious problem of alienation in our country. 1 regret that his examples were based on rumours rather than reality, that they even reflected error rather than truth. The Leader of the Official Opposition tells me to give a few examples. Well, he accused the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) of failing to consult his Albertan counterpart when he decided not to cut, as the Leader of the Official Opposition said, the price of oil coming from the tar sands, but to limit its increase. Well, on the contrary the minister assures me that he did consult his counterpart.
The Leader of the Opposition also gave other examples in the field of transport. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) here tells me that all these examples are false. The Leader of the Opposition took care to say "there is talk". It may well be that "there is talk" but it is nothing but groundless rumours. In any case, I do not wish to start this session by disagreeing with the Leader of the Opposition on what may well be minor details. On the contrary, I want to assure him that our parties are in total agreement about the feelings he has expressed and about his will to make Parliament work actively and optimistically towards greater Canadian unity. He also gave a somewhat apocalyptic description of the present situation. I agree with him that we are living in difficult times. But I think it is important that at the beginning of a new session of Parliament we remember that Canada remains one of the most fortunate countries of the world.
As the world gets smaller and smaller, as good or bad news from the antipodes are transmitted and analysed within the hour on the streets of Montreal and Edmonton, Canadians are realizing that Canada along with a very small number of nations stands at the top of the pyramid of human happiness and that all the other nations have much less material wealth and freedom, so few of all those institutions that allow men and women to prosper freely in this human life.
This reality, Madam Speaker, must be recalled, because all those other peoples see and imagine Canada as some kind of far away oasis on the horizon, as a land of unbelievable happiness that is not only blessed with earthly wealth, but where people live fraternally in peace, safe from war, and enjoying institutions that aim at always expanding that freedom. And I think the great majority of those countries long for

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
the day when they will be able to share even some of this happiness.
But the Leader of the Official Opposition is nonetheless right when he says that Canadians expect a great deal from this Parliament, from this government. All members of the House and of the Senate are undoubtedly aware of the responsibility they have of not thwarting those expectations. And I can assure the Leader of the Official Opposition that we, on our side, are keenly aware of our responsibilities and that we will do everything we can so that the dangers that exist in all areas of the world have as little effect as possible on Canadians.
We are entering a very dangerous decade, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly stated, and many lethal currents are swirling about our shores. The Leader of the Opposition alluded to dangers in other parts of the world, and I can tell him that not only when he was the prime minister but also now that he is in opposition we share the feelings he expressed about the dangers to the peace of the world of such events as we have witnessed in the past months: the invasion by military might of the sovereignty of another country; the crushing by oppressive regimes of liberties and very often the very lives of peoples in other countries; and the very dangerous events which can fall from chaotic economic conditions throughout the world which limit our freedom of action and our freedom to pursue our own economic happiness. These are great dangers, but in a sense the greatest enemy is the enemy within, not the enemy without. 1 remember something Pogo used to say: "We have met the enemy, and they are us".


An hon. Member:: "He is us".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 have looked up the quotation, and it is "they are us".
1 believe that the Leader of the Opposition was correct in spending a good part of the time of his speech indicating that indeed in Canada there is this growing doubt about our ability to continue to act as one strong nation, and before looking at who is responsible for that I think it is important that we at least have a fair diagnosis of what is happening. We do see Canadians fearing that other Canadians will be a danger to them. We see provinces closing their doors to capital or labour or goods from other provinces. We see some Canadians acting as though the language and culture of other Canadians was a threat to them. We see Canadians slamming the door one in the face of the other and putting impediments before the free movement of people-I suppose even of ideas and culture- throughout this land, and ! think that is the greater of all the dangers present in this coming decade. That is the danger that can bring a proud Canada to its knees if we in this Parliament do not sense our responsibility in acting together and expressing the national will and the national interest.
I was very pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition when he was commending you, Madam Speaker, and complimenting you on the role which you have courageously undertaken, and I join in those compliments. But I was pleased also to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that you and we in this chamber are here to uphold the national inerest and the national will. That gives me reason to be hopeful that this enemy within will soon be vanquished.
I had occasion to express that hope many times during the eight weeks of campaigning which we all went through when I sensed that in every part of Canada the majority of Canadians see as their first loyalty their loyalty to Canada before their loyalty to their regions. Very often we hear Quebeckers or Albertans say "I am a Quebecker" or "I am an Albertan"; but if you really press them and examine them, they will always say "1 am a Canadian first and a Quebecker second" or "an Albertan second".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is this loyalty to the whole country upon which we must build if we want to vanquish this enemy within, this gnawing doubt, this uncertainty as to whether or not we will continue in ten or 20 years to act as a strong, united nation. It is this loyalty to the whole country that we in this chamber have the duty to nourish and develop, and certainly we on the treasury benches and in this party will make every effort in that direction.
If, indeed, we are insensitive in some areas-and if it is not mere rumour but reality-I say in advance that we will try to make amends for that; we will try to show a better understanding of whatever group in society or whatever region of the country feels that it was not justly served by this government. [Translation]
When I listened yesterday to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, 1 was proud to hear two new members voice their conviction with such eloquence, not only because they represent a part of the country that they hold dear but also because they managed in their maiden speech in this House to express their desire to serve not only their constituents, but also to serve the best interests of Canada, of the whole country, and to put their policy proposals in the context of a broader Canada which they are here to serve like all of us. And if we in this House do not constantly remind each other that this loyalty to Canada must prevail against the loyalty to the region, to the province or even to the constituency, well, who will do it for us?
We are the only group of men and women in this country who can speak for every Canadian. We are the only group, the only assembly in this country, which can speak for the whole nation, which can express the national will and the national interest. I think it is important that, in the discharge of our
April 15, 1980

duties as the government or as the opposition, we look to that and that when we disagree, that that disagreement not be based on regional interests, on the fact that it might be the duty of provincial governments to serve, but be based on the concept of the whole which we try to serve in our different ways. Because, after all, what is the feeling of belonging to a country, which we call citizenship, and what is the feeling of loving a country, which we term patriotism? They have less to do with our debates, the policies and laws and even the constitution of this country. They have less to do even with the geography and the history of this country, which in a sense are collective notions, history being the recital of things that we have done together in the past.
1 think patriotism has to be brought down to a much more individual level. A person loves his or her country and is loyal to it if he or she feels that she can get a fair deal in that country, if he or she feels that in any part of that country they will be able to fulfil themselves to the maximum of their possibilities. That will happen to them regardless of where they were born and regardless of how long they or their ancestors might have lived in this country.
The feeling of being a Canadian, that individual feeling which we must cultivate, the feeling of being loyal to something which is bigger than the province or the city in which we happen to live, must be based on a protection of the basic rights of the citizen, of an access by that citizen to a fair share of the abundance of wealth in this country and to the richness and diversity of its laws. In that sense, the national interest must prevail over the regional interest, difficult as it is for some of us sometimes to set aside our feelings as citizens of this town or inhabitants of that province, because the provincial governments and other groups are there to speak for their interests. That is their duty and that is what they are elected for. But we are elected to speak for all of Canada, and if a person cannot feel that in any part of the country he or she will get a fair share, then they will transfer their loyalty from the whole to the particular part of the country in which they choose to live.
That is the enemy within-when loyalties are no longer to the whole but there is a conflict in loyalties; when we seek protection of our wealth, our rights or our language not in the whole country but in a region or a province of that country. That is how we come to shut doors in each other's face, because we feel we will not get a fair share in every part of the country.
I admit that the concept of a fair share may be defined differently according to one's ideology, one's political beliefs; but 1 think that when you bring it down to certain basics, we in a democratic society would all agree that it must at least mean that no one will have cake unless everyone has bread. And perhaps, on a more sophisticated level, we could express that, as was done in the Speech from the Throne, by saying that it is our duty to help first those who need it most. Perhaps in our society, as I am looking once again for a common denominator among all parties, we would all agree that equality of opportunity at least must be offered to every citizen, no matter in what
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
part of this country he or she was born or he or she chooses to live.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That concept of sharing can only be guaranteed, I repeat, if there is a national government which is prepared to state that the national interest must prevail in any situation of conflict over regional differences.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 think it is important to indicate in an aside that in a federal form of government like ours one cannot hold-and 1 am not holding-that the national government is the sole voice or that the national Parliament is the sole instrument of the national interest in every area. On the contrary, the Canadian Constitution provides that the exercise of sovereignty will be divided and that in some matters, such as resources or education, the national interest will be the aggregate of provincial interests. But even there, when the Fathers of Confederation, the founding Fathers, wrote the constitution they made sure that even in areas of provincial jurisdiction, if they were exercised in a way which was contrary to the national interest, it was the right, and I suppose we should say the obligation, of the national government to uphold the national interest. That is why we find in the Constitution of Canada such things as the declaratory power, the reservation and disallowance powers, the spending power and the right to make orders in matters of education as provided by section 93, subsections (3) and (4).
I am not saying that these rights cannot be limited or bargained away. As a matter of fact, our government, beginning in 1968 and 1969, proposed ways of limiting the spending power. Our government, as recently as at the federal-provincial conference in February of 1979, proposed ways of limiting the declaratory power. But what I am saying is that when there is a conflict of interest, not of laws which will be judged by the courts, the citizens must be convinced that there is a national government which will speak for the national interest and will ensure that it does prevail.
In spite of this divisiveness in Canada, in spite of the mounting alienations described by the hon. header of the Opposition, in spite of the fact that diversity must be recognized and is recognized by the very form of our federalism, in spite of the fact that there always can be some negotiations in the matter of constitutional reform which will try to remove feelings of alienation, we have to come back to the basic realization that if we are in federal politics and choose to sit in this chamber rather than in provincial chambers, first we must look to the expression of national interests rather than provincial ones.
Once again this is not a new doctrine, but I think it is increasingly challenged. I was somewhat worried by the tone of the Leader of the Opposition when once again he accused us of insensitivity, but where he was really saying that the

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
national policies we were following were not acceptable in this or that province. He himself said that his government had been successful in reconciling these regional differences. He knows and we all know that he was not successful in reconciling, for instance, the views of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta on energy pricing. Perhaps there is no way of reconciling them. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is now sitting over there because he found out that his national policies-and 1 respect them as such-were not understood as such and were not accepted certainly by the government of Ontario in the matter of energy. That is one very real difficulty.
I repeat, we can disagree with the policies of the Leader of the Opposition on energy or other economic matters, but we will not criticize them for attempting to express what is good for the whole country. Nor would I expect him to criticize our policies on that basis. If the citizens of Canada want to feel really free in this country, they have to enjoy the basic freedom of movement, the freedom to move or the freedom not to move.
In the matter of resources, if the only way of having access to the wealth coming from a particular resource would be to move to its proximity, then indeed we would be losing one of our basic freedoms. If a citizen of Alberta, for instance, when he is offered a job in Ontario or Nova Scotia, thought he was giving up all claim on the wealth of that province, he would lose something of his freedom to move and he would say, "What happens if 1 go away? Do my children still have a claim on the heritage fund?" What happens to the family in Newfoundland who likes to live in Newfoundland but knows that if they move to some other part of Canada they may become wealthier sooner?
We have found answers to that over the decades in this country. We have found answers by equalization grants, by grants for regional development, by bringing in policies to help the aged, the unemployed and those who are handicapped to make sure that once again citizens of Canada get their fair share in any part of this country. It is in this spirit that we in this government intend to seek policies which will try to reconcile, or at least diminish, the differences between the interests of Ontario and Alberta, or of Quebec and British Columbia, or of any other part of Canada. It is in this spirit that this government will bring in laws, because we are convinced that if we have the will we can preserve this strong Canadian country; we can conquer the enemy within. [Translation]
Ernest Renan once said that a nation is an everyday plebiscite and in that sense millions of Canadians have every day been expressing their support for Canada for more than a hundred years. They have spoken of their membership in this country which is based on sharing, on exchange, on brotherhood; through a form of plebiscite they have voted in favour of this country. And now, in the province of Quebec, we are living very historical times where Quebeckers will have to answer the question put to them in the plebiscite or referendum. That of course requires a greater sense of responsibility on their part,
while giving them the opportunity to express their views on Canada, their views on the place that Quebec can and must take within Canada.
I for one had hoped that even the Parti Quebecois would show more sincerity and more courage in this historical moment. As far back as January, 1977, I expressed the hope that the referendum question would be clear, that it would come soon and that it would be definitive, so that we could leave the issue aside for a generation at least. Unfortunately, the referendum question was slow in coming. It has been about three and a half years since the election of the Parti Quebecois; it is not definitive since it is obvious in the very wording of the question that there will eventually be a second referendum, and it certainly is not clear since it is based on a deliberate ambiguity on the part of the Parti Quebecois which knew full well that if it simply asked: "Do you, yes or no, want independence?" Quebeckers would say no.
Do PQ supporters want independence, yes or no, Madam Speaker? And if they want independence, why did they not put it squarely to the people of Quebec? They wanted to take them in by proceeding, as they say, by steps, but that is in the mind of everyone a systematic and voluntary ambiguity. 1 will have the opportunity as a Quebecker, along with other members, to work for the No campaign and express my views clearly on this issue when 1 go to the province of Quebec and I talk to Quebeckers as a Quebecker.
It is my duty today as Prime Minister of Canada to say, as the Leader of the Opposition did most eloquently, what position we will be taking in the event of a yes or no in the referendum.
Madam Speaker, I repeat that it is not the intention of the Government of Canada to go and wage the referendum battle. Quebeckers in the House will be doing that, and I am sure they will do so well and convincingly. As a government, I believe we have to explain to Quebeckers who will be called upon to vote yes or no what our attitude will be as the Government of Canada in the event of a yes as well as a no. That is what I intend to do in a few minutes if the House will bear with me.
Let us first consider the case of a Yes answer. Let us assume a majority of Quebeckers vote Yes in the referendum. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, will have to start by recognizing that his mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association is a very ambiguous one, as 1 said earlier. He must first recognize that to associate one must associate with someone. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out so appropriately, all the premiers noted, sometimes individually and sometimes collectively like the four western premiers, that they were not interested in sovereignty-association. They entirely ruled out the possibility of association, in particular, first because it would be against their interests, as Premier Blakeney said as recently as last week. Association would not be interesting for his province if Quebec were to separate because economically
April 15, 1980

he would not get the same sense of sharing as he does with Canada as a whole.
It is very obvious in the comments made by all those premiers that they have no sympathy for a government bent on destroying the nation and that if they were to associate they would certainly not associate with an independent state that had caused the breaking up of our country. Mr. Levesque and his government said very clearly that sovereignty and association should be achieved at the same time, as it is clearly expressed in the referendum question, and that at the same time Quebec should maintain an economic association with Canada. And to be even clearer, Premier Levesque emphasized that several times. I have here his speech of October 10, 1978, where he said, I quote:
There is no question in our mind of first achieving sovereignty and of negotiating association later on. Sovereignty and association must therefore be achieved together and concurrently.
Moreover, in the white paper published only a few months ago, one finds the following on page 77:
Sovereignty cannot go without association: they are inseparable.
Madam Speaker, imagine the feelings of the provincial first ministers who have no economic or cultural interest in negotiating association and who have absolutely no reason to agree to association. By asking this question, the Pequiste government has given them every reason to say no. By saying no, not only are these provinces acting in their interest, but they are also ensuring that Quebec will not achieve sovereignty since, once again, we have been assured that one will not come about without the other. Since Mr. Levesque will not succeed, if the answer is yes, in dissociating from those with whom he seeks to associate, he will probably come to the federal government, where he will be received with the same courtesy that he has always shown me, and he will say: Do you, the federal government, want sovereignty-association with Quebec? I shall have to tell him first of all that Canada is a sovereign and independent country and that common markets are set up by sovereign and independent countries.
1 do not know whether we shall eventually establish one, but since for the moment Quebec is not a sovereign and independent country, there is no way of discussing association with Quebec. On the contrary, Quebec is part of a federation which is itself an association. This federation can be changed and improved, but it is not an association of the common market type which the Canadian government could negotiate with the Quebec government since, in our view, Quebec is not an independent country.
In this case, perhaps Mr. Levesque will say: Well, since we cannot discuss association, let us discuss purely and simply sovereignty. Obviously, the reply will be: Mr. Levesque, you do not have a mandate to discuss purely and simply sovereignty because you did not ask this question purely and simply in your referendum. You therefore have no mandate to discuss sovereignty, and as Canadian Prime Minister, I do not have
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
myself a mandate to discuss this with you since your concept of sovereignty is in fact defined in your question as the exclusive power to make your own laws, to collect your own taxes and to establish your own external relations. Not even two months ago, the people in Quebec, together with the rest of the country, unequivocally elected a government to sit in Ottawa precisely to make laws for the entire country, to collect taxes and redistribute them throughout the country and to look after external relations. We have therefore just received from the people in Quebec a mandate to exercise sovereignty for the entire country.
Since this will be a dialogue between two persons without mandates to discuss sovereignty, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Levesque will perforce be nonsuited. And it is my forecast that this nonsuit will probably prompt some Pequistes to say: "You see, there is no possible talks with the federal government. The other provinces are not reasonable, they will not have discussions with us. You voted Yes on referendum day, but now you are being humiliated by a partner who will not recognize your Yes vote; he will not even negotiate with you."
Then people will say: "The only way out is to slam the door and look for ways to reach independence, period!" You see, Madam Speaker, how the No answer that will be given to the PQ choice by all parties in this House, the No answer that has already been given to the PQ choice by provincial premiers, will be interpreted by some as a No answer to the people of Quebec, and this is what I would like to caution Quebeckers against. Those who will be casting a Yes vote to the referendum should know at the outset they are proceeding into a dead end. They must know at the outset that a Yes vote can only lead to a political and legal impasse, because as I have shown there can be no association without partners, of which there is none. And independence cannot be achieved without association, which is why it will not be achieved.
More serious still than that attempt that will be made by some PQ supporters to interpret such criticism as an insult to Quebeckers, this answer we are giving in advance, is that this dead end will prevent us from renewing our federalism. It will prevent us from putting aside once and for all those constitutional arguments about government levels and the powers exercised by each, which go on at the expense of the people because they are leading all active elements-all creative elements in the Quebec people-into a dead end to which we see no way out.
Another serious matter is that there will be another referendum because the Quebec premier is stating in the question itself that there will be another referendum. He says so in many of his speeches, that there will be eventually another referendum, which means there can be no end to the uncertainty. This uncertainty weighs heavily not only on Quebec but

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
on all of Canada. It has unfavourable economic repercussions on employment and the development of our resources, because nobody will be any wiser as far as Canada's future is concerned. But rather than amplifying on this, which I may have other opportunities to do, let us now see what will happen if a No answer is given to the referendum question. As much as I would like to suggest there would then be nothing but order and beauty, luxury, quiet and bliss, as the verse goes, nothing unfortunately is more doubtful. A No vote by the Quebec people would mean, at any rate for the time being, that sovereignty-association would no longer be discussed. It would mean, as I believe the Leader of the Official Opposition, myself and doubtless the leader the New Democratic Party would have it, that the Quebec people want renewed federalism. But who will be the interlocutor for this renewed federalism, Madam Speaker? The PQ government would destroy federalism, so we really cannot expect it to have a constructive attitude in the search for new formulas.
Before building a house to meet the needs of a family, it must be first decided that family life is wanted. Now, as we know, the ultimate goal of the PQ ideology is to sever Quebec from Canada; we cannot then bank on them to hold very productive negotiations in the field of new federalism. So, 1 repeat, even a No vote may not necessarily lead to the renewed federalism everyone wants. There is doubtless one way of ensuring it, and that is a massive No, a No that rings so loud and clear that the PQ government would understand that Quebeckers truly do not want to separate from Canada, and that they had better buckle down to the task of renewing federalism instead of destroying it.
That is the knot that we find in the chain that is presented by the kind of question which has been proposed. If the answer to the question of the referendum is Yes, then we are in a dead-end situation because, and 1 repeat, nobody wants or can associate in a common market type of association with a Quebec which will not be independent by virtue of its very question. Nobody can negotiate the independence of Quebec since the premier of Quebec will not have a mandate to negotiate it unless he gets association and since we as a government have just received from the province of Quebec a massive mandate to make laws for the province of Quebec along with the rest of the country.
What is important at this stage of our political life is to put an end to the uncertainty that Quebec has been in since the PQ party was elected in November, 1976. Once again, that is why the only chance that we can have of obtaining that would be a massive No vote on the referendum. I am not prophesying any result on the referendum; I am only analysing what the attitude of the federal government will be and must be. I do feel that at this time in the life of Canada it is important, if we are going to build bridges between every part of Canada, that we get rid of that doubt. And I repeat, that doubt is not only
expressed by the separatists in Quebec, but also by what is hopefully still a small minority across the land who have been closing doors or burning bridges and protecting their particular interest over and above the national interest.
We in this Parliament have a great duty to try and express as fairly as possible the national will of all Canadians. Certainly on this side of the House we have a great compelling faith that it can be done, because we know that in most societies problems which are caused by human beings can be solved by human beings. We are confident that we can find ways to ensure that every part of Canada sees that it is represented in some way, not only in the Parliament of this country but in the government of this country, whatever that government happens to be.
The Speech from the Throne proposed that we look into ways of ensuring this better representation. The Leader of the Opposition attempted, with what means he had when he was prime minister, to represent Quebec in his government. We attempted with what means we had to represent parts of Canada where we had no elected members. They are insufficient.
There are other ways of doing it. We had in Bill C-60 in a previous Parliament proposed that this kind of representation come through the Senate. Propositions have been made by Pepin-Robarts and various premiers that we look at forms of proportional representation. The idea was even discussed after the last election. We hope that a committee of Parliament will look into every way in which our electoral system, or indeed our parliamentary system, can be changed to make sure that the government can not only speak for the whole country but can be seen by each part of the country as speaking for it. Other countries have other systems and perhaps they achieve that better; I do not know. But I hope that this committee will look not only at proportional representation but various forms of electoral or parliamentary change which could ensure that there is an expression of national will when a government speaks.
I do not discard the idea of an eventual national referendum. If that is the only way in which we can get the people of Canada to affirm their loyalty to Canada over and above their regional loyalties, then I think we should not put the idea aside. Eventually I hope to have occasion to discuss that idea with leaders of other parties and perhaps with the premiers. Perhaps we can find some simple question having to do with constitutional reform upon which there would be a large enough measure of agreement to have a positive vote for Canada in a national referendum. But that is not for today nor indeed perhaps for this particular session, although I hope it might be for this Parliament.
In conclusion, I think we all must realize that our economic problems, the questions we must solve in foreign affairs, the challenges we meet in the development of this country in every way, in the exchange of cultures, can only be discussed fruitfully in the context of a strong Canada. And Canada must be
April 15, 1980

strong not only militarily, though that is important, and not only economically, though that is vital, but Canada must be strong in the hearts of its people. Canada must be strong more than in its institutions; it must be strong in the kind of adherence that each individual citizen makes to the common good, to the national will.

Only if we have the national will to share in the common destiny of the country as a whole, only if we are willing to build in justice and freedom a Canada of a meeting of ethnic groups, a Canada where economic and cultural sharing are open and generous, only when we have accomplished that, Madam Speaker, will we have, in this legislature, accomplished the duty entrusted to us by our electors.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)-Industry, Trade and Commerce-Jobs available in automobile manufacturing.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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.
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, at the outset of this Parliament, at this particularly poignant period in our history, we should be committing ourselves to the kind of future greatness that our combination of peoples and nature makes possible-a greatness whose character rests neither on numbers nor on power, but on the quality of life we make possible for all those who live within our borders.
At this moment in particular, then, our goal must not be merely the temporary patching up of immediate flaws or grievances that we find in the land; our goal should be nothing less than the setting out of objectives which will enable us a decade from now not only to look back and say that Canada is
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
indeed more decent in its arrangements and more exciting for all its members, but is indeed still one country because of the things we started to do in 1980.
We in this Parliament, Madam Speaker, have an obligation to the people of Canada to provide the leadership and policies that will make this reality possible. We must do so not only because that is what a democratic mandate ought to be about in general, but because as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) recognized, particularly at this moment, such policies, such actions, are necessary to garner and maintain support among all our regions and peoples which is so essential to Canada at this time.

Quebeckers will have to vote on the political future of their province and of Canada on May 20. They have two possibilities: sovereignty-association and Canada. Quebeckers will say Yes to Canada if they think that we want deep changes and that we reject the status quo. Like other Canadians but more strongly, they demand changes in Quebec. In this session, they expect us to act. It would not be enough to insist on the economic benefits offered by Canada to convince Quebeckers, but at the same time I want to stress that it is not enough to have taken action. It is also necessary to convince them that we want fundamental changes to build a society that is more just for everyone in Canada.

The Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister have suggested certain laudable goals that might take us in this direction. The Prime Minister focused in a serious and thoughtful way on some of the abstract principles involved in a Oui or Non vote on the question that is before the people of the province of Quebec, and in a general, abstract way on some of the considerations that are involved in developing a sense of loyalty or patriotism in the regions.
There are some matters he did not touch upon which I think are so central to the argument, so important to the reality of genuine feelings of national unity, that I intend certainly to touch upon them, because the argument cannot be left in abstract form. If we learned anything from the recent debate in the province of Quebec on the question before that assembly, we should be convinced that logic, and reason, while having an important role to play, are quite inadequate in terms of winning the hearts and minds of a people to move in a certain direction in history.
O)
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I want to put my argument in somewhat recasted form to deal with the framework that the Prime Minister provided for the argument. When we talk about patriotism and about a sense of fairness being connected, as the Prime Minister suggested, that we are likely to be patriotic and have a sense of the legitimacy of the whole of our country if we have a sense that fairness is in fact occurring where we happen to live, in our work place or in our region,
38

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
then I will agree with that part of the argument because it is one that we in this party have made for a long time.
But through you, Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister to consider his own throne speech in the context of that framework, to reflect a bit upon our recent history when he was Prime Minister and to make some judgments about the accuracy of his own statement today that his own government, through its actions, had moved in rather decisive ways to create feelings of patriotism and feelings of fairness in these regions. In my view, the problems singled out in the throne speech-that of foreign ownership, that of the need to have improvements for women in Canada, that of the need for an industrial strategy-are all problems that are not new in Canada, in fact, they are not new in the sense of being addressed by the government that we have today.
Canadians know that in reality we do not have a new government today. What we have is the same Prime Minister and the same party that has continuously governed for 12 years except for a nine-month interlude. Canadians know that the programs enunciated in the Speech from the Throne are in fact being enunciated in the Speech from the Throne precisely because of the inadequacy of the government that we had for the past 12 years, and that it was the Liberal government itself that created the need for its own throne speech yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask the Prime Minister to reflect on his own speech when he says that patriotism is related to a sense of a fair deal, and to ask himself how the people of the various regions of Canada who are considering this very important and historic debate today are going to respond to that when they think about his own government.
How are they going to respond to the promises when they consider the following: that it was a Liberal government that created its own problem of a lack of a sense of patriotism, to use the Prime Minister's words, or a feeling of "the enemy within" to use his phrase applied in a new context. For example, Madam Speaker, if you were a western Canadian on the prairies in the last few years and you did not get a commitment for the speedy implementation of the Hall royal commission, and because you did not there was prolonged alienation from western farmers who had a sense of grievance that was not being dealt with by the Liberal party, how would you feel? Or if you were a Cape Bretoner in Sydney in the last six, seven, eight, or nine years and you knew you had the potential steel resources, the coal and the labour force, but you had a central government that failed to address the needs of the people and the human reality of getting stable jobs that could have been provided by serious capital investment in the steel industry that only the national government and not the government of Nova Scotia could provide, then how would you feel about such a situation? How are people going to feel toward a government now that talks about doing something for an industrial strategy when their own sense of alienation and of being cut off as a Cape Bretoner was, in part, a very direct byproduct of the failure of this government to act?
Or if you are one of the 20,000 unemployed auto workers who are in part symptomatic of the reality that the province of Ontario, for the first time in Canadian history, is becoming a have-not province because it has not had an industrial strategy worthy of the name, how are you going to respond to a Prime Minister who talks in very abstract terms today about the need to overcome a sense of personal or regionally restricted grievance? Madam Speaker, it seems to me that you are not likely to respond with a great amount of enthusiasm-if I can put it that way-to the new commitment that we presumably got in the throne speech yesterday.
It is not just the question of a farmer on the prairies, or a potential steelworker in Sydney who is unemployed, or an auto worker in Ontario who is unemployed. There are general categories which the Prime Minister mentioned that I think are more devastating as examples of the reason that we have tension.
The Prime Minister committed himself and his government in 1971 to the view that redistribution of wealth was a hallmark of his party. If it is so, it is the wrong kind of hallmark because during the period he was Prime Minister we redistributed wealth all right, but upwards. After a decade, instead of the poor in Canada being reduced as a statistical entity, their proportion increased numerically.
In 1968, again to deal with the issue that he brings appropriately before us today in his speech, he raised the question of regional development. What happened? In Atlantic Canada both the number of new jobs and percentage of new investment declined in comparative terms with the rest of Canada throughout the decade during which the present Prime Minister governed this country. So we did not get regional development. We got an exacerbation of regional economic circumstances after the present Prime Minister's decade in power.
Similarly in the throne speech concern was expressed about women and inequality. The reality again is that women in our country have, after years of the present government, a large gap between their salaries and those of men because this government talked in abstracts and did nothing about it in ten years. In fact, the gap has widened somewhat not narrowed, in the past decade.
A resource-based economy is indeed central to what the Prime Minister has said, because there are feelings of regionalism in northern Ontario and in much of British Columbia. There are feelings of regionalism in every part of our country that is dependent on resource extraction and export of those resources abroad. These people do not feel they are getting a square deal from Ottawa or from their national government.
A few years ago, in 1968, the Prime Minister said we had to diversify our economy and get away from dependence on the export of resources. Again, the reality is that in 1978, after ten years of Liberal government, our dependence on the resource sector has grown from 51.6 per cent to 54.5 per cent. Instead of making us less dependent, we became more dependent.
I could go on and cite other examples but I will not at this point. The important point about all of these items, as well as
April 15, 1980

the others I could cite, is that not only did the Liberals fail completely to deliver on these worth-while goals during the past decade, but they did so from within the framework of being able to act if they had wanted to.
There are a number of examples, among them inflation and unemployment in general across the country, where a government of Canada is very much influenced by world circumstances; but every one of the examples I have referred to-and they were deliberately selected for that reason-were areas of policy that the Government of Canada could have acted upon and produced measures that would have reduced some of the problems-apart from their inherent justice that the Prime Minister talked about-if it had wanted to act. The reason we have problems in these areas is because the party opposite did not do in 1968 what it promised. So why should we believe them today?
1 want to spend half of my time in this important debate on the question of national unity, more narrowly defined in the sense that I want to talk about the referendum. Before doing so, I want to say something about certain particular items that could get immediate action, but which we have had no sign we are going to get from the present government. We got it in the throne speech and, if I may say so, we got it from the Prime Minister today, a nice general framework. If one is complacent and concerned simply with the intellectual framework of arguments, one might go away very impressed and say yes, there is a demonstration of an understanding in broad terms of our problems.
Politics, however, is quite different from that. Politics requires something other than a broad understanding. Politics requires action to meet the real needs of human beings if you want to get the general results.
What are some of the real problems and sources of regional discontent that bear directly on the question of national unity and are not getting action? Interest rates, of course, is one of them. The Conservative party criticized the Liberals on this question before last May when they got into power. I accept in one sense that if you operate within that philosophical framework, you may change your policy. There are some policies they may have to change and maybe they should be a little more hesitant about making commitments in advance.
The Conservatives promised a low interest rate policy. When they got in, they increased interest rates four times. The Liberals in the most recent campaign blasted the Conservatives for their high interest rate program. Now they are in power and they too have increased interest rates four times. I want to indicate that these problems are not abstract.
I want to deal with the reply today of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) when he asked whether there is an alternative, and I will come to that in a minute. The situation is alarming because not only in Canada but because of the monetary policies of absurd and irresponsible government in Great Britain, and now in the United States, this kind of economic thinking, which I thought went out forever in 1920,
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
is creating the foundation for a major depression on a worldwide scale. That has been widely recognized.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Just look at some of the indications in our own country. In the logging industry in British Columbia as of yesterday more than 5,000 workers were out of a job, most of them since January. In Saskatchewan today farmers are losing control of their farms, not in high numbers yet but in record numbers for modern times. Young men and in some cases women can no longer go into farming because of high interest rates.
The home ownership situation in our land is now truly calamitous. Once home ownership was a dream for Canadians. In 1980 that dream is turning into a nightmare, and I do not exaggerate. For those who are going to be renewing their mortgages, and most people with mortgages are young families with income levels that qualified them for minimal subsidies in the last few years-I am told there are about 350,000 mortgages coming up for renewal-the average increase in monthly payment is going to be 54 per cent in one year. That is about $200 a month on a typical mortgage, or almost $3,000 a year.
If the government does not act decisively, and not just for those at the bottom end of the income scale but for every Canadian in this mortgage crisis situation, more people will lose their homes in 1980 than in any period since the depression, and any government should be seriously and humanly concerned about that reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I point out to the Minister of Finance that just two weeks ago in Newfoundland for any fisherman wanting to buy a boat the interest rate went up 2 per cent. I understand that with that 2 per cent increase in the interest rate on a 65-foot longliner, a Newfoundland fisherman will be required to catch 250,000 additional pounds of fish just to pay for that increase.
For the first time since the depression credit unions and caisses populaires are having their very existence threatened because of the high interest rate situation. With regard to small businesses, bankruptcies increased 25 per cent in the first two months of this year. The logging industry on the west coast, fishermen in Atlantic Canada, auto workers in Ontario, credit unions, caisses populaires, small businesses and now medium-sized businesses are all under threat because of the absurd interest rate policy of this government, and that means human beings are under threat.
The Minister of Finance asks what can be done. I say to him that Germany, Switzerland and Japan have a low interest rate policy, though as he knows, the rate has gone up somewhat.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Quite a bit.


John Edward Broadbent: In most cases it is about half what it is in Canada. When you have an inflation rate of 20 per cent in the United States and an inflation rate in Canada of 10 per cent,

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
you do not have to rely on the old argument that we have to move anywhere near the Americans in terms of interest rate policy because the real rate on return in Canada is higher than in the United States.
I say to the Minister of Finance that I will provide him with a list of economists if he wants to listen to some progressive people, instead of following the move to the right that has taken place in economic circles in recent years. In that way he can learn something from others and do something that is good for the people of this country. One of our spokespersons in this debate will dwell on that issue at considerable length.
Then there is the issue in the throne speech that has immediate consequences, that of controlling Canadian gas and oil resources. I thought it was a misprint when I originally read my text. The Liberals said they would commit themselves to obtaining 50 per cent ownership of our petroleum industry by 1990. What a challenge! What leadership! Every other country in the world with oil resources, such as Venezuela, Mexico and countries in the Middle East, have long since taken over completely their oil industry, and that is precisely what we in Canada should be doing. However, in ten years with the Liberals, Canadians will have 50 per cent. That is the marvellous Liberal approach that I am sure will characterize all of the other so-called progressive points found in the throne speech. The NDP says that ten years is not good enough. We should have virtually total control of our industry in this country within five years, not half in ten.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Another practical measure is in the farming area. In addition to bringing down interest rates, which would help farmers, a number of suggestions have been made that the government should act on and which would be useful. One was proposed by Environment Canada, pointing out that if we developed our own greenhouse industry like a number of other countries have, we could be using heat from our power plants that is now wasted and save a billion dollars annually in imports of fruits and vegetables. A billion dollars is very important in terms of the effect on our balance of payments.
A particular which received almost no attention at all in the throne speech and which was totally ignored by the Prime Minister today was the fate of more than one million unemployed Canadians. We in this party are not going to stand back, forget, and make them part of a forgotten generation of unemployed. When there are a million unemployed there is a human reality, and there is an economic reality in terms of the lost production of goods and services. Indeed, we need a budget soon which will have its prime focus on creating jobs for Canadians who want to work and not receive handouts.
In short, apart from the nice general framework provided for by the Prime Minister in his argument, he should have given us some visible testimony that he is going to move in dealing with our concerns. He is right that a sense of patriotism or a feeling of national loyalty is dependent upon our own
economic well-being where we happen to live, and if he had provided that kind of commitment for action in his speech today, 1 for one, and many more Canadians, would be considerably happier than we are at this moment.
There are a number of other areas which require serious action by this Parliament in the coming decade. I say frankly that at this point my party is facing these, but there is no easy answer. We are developing policies ourselves, but I want to list some of these because whether we are in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal party or the New Democratic Party, in our parliamentary work in the next few years we should be seriously concerned about the problems which are associated with maintaining a sane and healthy environment for our people in an advanced industrial age.
This country has uranium resources. What kind of over-all policy do we have for the development of uranium, with all its horrific possible implications if we export it for nuclear war? At the same time what can we do with countless nations around the world which do not have the alternative sources of energy which we have?
Then there is the very important question of military spending, which must be of concern to all of us. One of the disturbing events which came up during the election campaign, which is symptomatic of new developments in the relationships between the United States and the U.S.S.R., is the heightening of their tension. 1 for one as a human being am deeply disturbed by the commitment of both the United Statets and the U.S.S.R., to new and massive spending in the military field.
1 am deeply disturbed by reports which are now being put out in both the U.S.S.R., and the United States of America that they could survive nuclear wars. We have to be concerned because just a few years ago in both of those countries-and notably in the United States-there was expression of deep concern about even talking of the possibility of nuclear war. There was appropriate human concern about the holocaust that would be involved. However, the terminology has now shifted, and mililtary people in both those great powers are convincing themselves and, in the documents that they are producing for the first time, are beginning to try to convince their populations that a nuclear war is survivable.
We have to be deeply concerned about heading off that kind of conflict. To say the least, that is a considerable understatement. In that context it is not just the nuclear development that we are concerned about. We are concerned also about the level of military spending as a whole particularly in the context of the problems of the Third World. There was a commission headed by a very distinguished world citizen, Willy Brandt, which completed its report recently. It pointed out the growing inequality between the north and the south, and pointed out in this context the real danger for the poorer part of mankind of the allocation of so much of our resources to armament.
As a Canadian 1 want to illustrate the point because we ourselves are in the process of spending massively in the military field. On the basis of data produced by the Brandt commission I have made calculations regarding the F-18
April 15, 1980

which we are going to be purchasing in Canada. Many members of Parliament in all parties have been concerned that when that decision is made the economic benefits should be shared in the country. That is a reasonable argument, but the relevant question is whether we should be spending money at all at this point in history for that kind of murderous weapon.
For each one of those planes we buy we could, instead, be providing 60,000 tons of rice for people who are starving in the Third World. For the price of each one of those aeroplanes we could be providing 30,000 pharmacies to the Third World, where drugs or medical care of a sophisticated nature are almost non-existent. That is for only one aircraft. Just think what we could be doing if we had a priority other than spending money in the military domain!
1 stress that this is a problem for mankind. It concerns the west, it concerns the east bloc, and the point 1 am making is that there are increasing amounts now being allocated as part of the gross national products in each of the major powers for armaments. Surely it is a time to renew once again major efforts to bring about disarmament for mankind.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 would now like to broach the subject of national unity, a subject which concerns not only Quebeckers but all of us. I can say that members of my party share with Quebeckers their independent spirit, their national pride and their love for their heritage but if we want these feelings to blossom we need a solid foundation for our two peoples. My party recognizes that Quebeckers have the right to choose freely their political future; the choice is theirs not ours. As far as we are concerned, the constitution must reflect the country's reality; if it no longer does, then it must be changed. Society evolves and political structures must adapt to its evolution. The Canada of the last century must give way to the Canada of the eighties. As a social democrat party, we must first choose the values we want to implement in our society; then we can decide what constitutional arrangements would be best to reach this goal. Here are some concrete examples of these values; the right to live and to work in one's own language, as language is a fundamental aspect of the personality; the right to hold an interesting and stable job; equality between sexes; security for retired people; Canadian control and development of our own resources. And finally, the effective redistribution of the economic benefits provided by our country.
Madam Speaker, because of the ideological changes that have taken place since the sixties, I think most Quebeckers agree now on these principles. The question is now to decide what form of constitutional system is best: independence, sovereignty-association or a renewed federalism. But now I want to deal with the recent debate held in the Quebec National Assembly. Recently I read the interesting and moving speech made in the National Assembly by Mr. Claude
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
Charron, parliamentary leader of the PQ. In his speech, Mr. Charron cited many examples of the mismanagement of what he called "the old regime". He recalled the indecision about the future of the Guy-Favreau complex, about Mirabel airport, the lotteries, the convention centre in Montreal, the automobile industry. During that debate, several other ministers of the Quebec government denounced the objectionable dealings of the old regime, the problems with the soft sectors, the shipyards, research and development and other such problems. Madam Speaker, my colleagues and myself fully agree with Mr. Charron and his colleagues on this point.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What's wrong with Mirabel?


John Edward Broadbent: I regret to have to say to the Prime Minister that Mr. Charron and his colleagues are quite right. These are true examples of complete failures of the old regime.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all.


John Edward Broadbent: Strangely enough, the Parti Quebecois did not specify that this old regime was the Liberal government. The reason is quite clear, they did not want to stress the fact that these problems have been created by politicians, namely by the Liberals, and are not the result of federalism, because they wanted-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But do you agree with what they said?


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister does not like that argument, but it is a fact.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you agree?


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister agrees-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But do you agree on lotteries, on Mirabel and on everything Mr. Charron has said?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, I agree on those arguments, as I have already said. The Prime Minister has made his speech, may I continue my remarks now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed!


John Edward Broadbent: The members of the Parti Quebecois did not say that the Liberals had made the same mistakes in the other provinces. True, we had a problem with airports, not only at Mirabel, but in Pickering. There is no doubt that we have problems in some soft sectors in Quebec; there are also problems in some sectors in the maritime provinces or in the province of Ontario, but the members of the Parti Quebecois did not say that for two reasons.
It is obvious to me as a New Democrat, Madam Speaker, that the federal political system is not responsible for those mistakes. Those who are at fault are those who governed the country during all those years, and those people are almost

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
exclusively the Liberal Party of Canada. Madam Speaker, the system is not responsible for those problems, the politicians are. It is the Liberals who did not do anyting about foreign control over our resources. It is the Liberals who did not accept Quebec nationalism. It is the Liberals who did not set up an industrial strategy, not only for Quebec, but for the whole of Canada. Those are facts. For me, Madam Speaker, and for many Canadians in other provinces, a federal Canada does not mean a liberal Canada. But at the same time, as I said, 1 do not agree with the PQ philosophy-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ah, yes, only the arguments.


John Edward Broadbent: Ah, ah, you agree now. Those mistakes can be avoided without destroying federalism. Furthermore, we can find a more efficient solution for our two peoples with a new federalism.
We of the New Democratic Party believe in a new federalism, a federalism that is fair for all regions. It is not enough to give linguistic equality to our two founding groups to arrive at a just society. But I want to point out that we support that principle and we agree entirely with the objectives of the Languages Act. Of course. The right to work in one's language is basic but you need to have work to be able to do that.
1 think it is possible to create a new, more equalitarian Canada not only in the linguistic area but also in all other areas. That is the raison d'etre of social democracy not only here in Canada but also in Norway, Germany, Sweden and also in Quebec. Canadians must finally be able to share Canada's immense wealth. That can be done within a new agreement.
The NDP represents among federal political parties the more diverse, the more progressive ideas. We believe in the development of our country by ourselves. We do not fear change or new ideas in social, cultural, economic and political areas. And in the provinces where we formed the government, we made the necessary changes. Basically, we are federalists because we think that form of flexible government is the one which allows to bring about the reforms we are hoping for. We do not want to rule instead of the provinces. On the contrary, we want to establish clearly the right for the provinces to control their natural resources and their communications. They have a fundamental role to play, and particularly Quebec due to its unique character.
We have stated several times in the last few years that we agree on the social and economic objectives of the Quebec government. For example, on the following policies, I want to tell the Prime Minister that we agree.


Madam Speaker:: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has expired. Flas he the consent of the House to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to tell the Prime Minister that we agree on the following programs of the Parti Quebecois: the income supplement program, the automobile insurance program, the incentive program for small and medium-sized businesses, the nationalization of the asbestos mines, the free access to the Quebec territory for recreation, hunting, fishing and other purposes, the objectives of the language act, the health insurance plan. To us those programs are acceptable. Those are several examples of programs the Quebec government implemented within the federal system. Those are the facts. It is thus possible. Madam Speaker, to change considerably the social and economic structures of the Quebec society within a federal system. You simply have to change the parties, especially if the federal government is social democrat.
For my part, Madam Speaker, 1 do not believe that the answer to the constitutional problems of Quebeckers and Canadians lies in sovereignty-association. Why not? There are many reasons for this. It is obvious that no provincial government will support such an association; there will be a permanent conflict between the two sovereign governments. But in my view and that of my party, there is a basic argument against this concept: It would not be a fair arrangement for the ordinary citizens of western and Atlantic Canada. I would like to explain why, Madam Speaker.
At the present time, Saskatchewan farmers, British Columbia lumbermen and Newfoundland fishermen purchase products manufactured in Quebec and Ontario. They can buy these same products at a lower price outside Canada. These products are now protected by import tariffs and quotas. Western and eastern citizens accept this situation because people in Ontario and Quebec pay taxes not only to Toronto and Quebec City, but also to Ottawa. This is the reason.
The Parti Quebecois wants one without the other. It wants the tariffs and quotas, but it does not want Quebeckers to pay their share to Ottawa. Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask Quebeckers if they would accept such a situation if they were Saskatchewan farmers or Newfoundland fishermen. I do not believe they would because it would not be equitable. Quebeckers want justice like all other Canadians. Once again, is everyone aware that we can say yes to Quebec without saying no to Canada? I am convinced that English Canada is willing to review its whole position within Canada and to negotiate a new agreement. 1 hope that the present debate will bring us closer to each other. It would be a sad thing if a misunderstanding were to lead to a situation where any agreement would be impossible. There have been inequities in the past. It is obvious. Madam Speaker, that we cannot make up for these inequities, but it must also be said that a lot of progress has already been made in Canada. Much has yet to be done, especially in the areas of economic equality, equality of the sexes, control of our resources and employment.
April 15, 1980

Madam Speaker, together we can build a Quebec and a Canada which will be fair and exciting for everyone, there is no doubt about it.
I would like to conclude by moving an amendment to the motion, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House regrets in particular the failure of the government to change the monetary policies in effect since 1975, and to instruct the governor of the Bank of Canada to take immediate steps to lower the interest rate by at least two percentage points."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Desmarais:: Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Louis R. Desmarais: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep emotion that I rise to make my maiden speech in this House before such a distinguished audience. I feel privileged, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to address my colleagues from the floor of this historic House which has guarded and preserved the rights and privileges of all Canadians since confederation.
First, I want to tell my constituents in Dollard how much I appreciate the honour they bestowed upon me by electing me as their representative in this House. To all the people of Ville-Saint-Laurent, Dollard des Ormeaux, Roxboro and Pier-refonds, I reiterate my deep gratitude for all the help, support and co-operation they gave me so generously.
I should also like to extend my most sincere congratulations to Madam Speaker for the expression of confidence she received from the House. With the electors from the riding of Laval-des-Rapides I feel honoured that their representative should have been chosen by the House to preside over its business.
At the same time 1 wish to tell my colleagues how pleased 1 am to be with them today and follow in the footsteps of the parliamentarians of today and yesterday who contributed so
The Address-Mr. Desmarais
much to make Parliament what it is today. I am very grateful to my colleagues on this side of the House for their warm welcome. I am looking forward to working with them as a team.

I do not hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to express myself in personal terms in this my maiden speech to this House. Reflections on human feelings, individual sentiments and personal characteristics, in so far as they contribute to a better understanding of individual needs are common to the Liberal traditions which my party hold.
We are living in confusing, discouraging, frustrating times. Rising costs, falling productivity, the incredibly complex organization of big business, big labour and big government have reduced the individual to a quivering mass of doubt and uncertainty. We see the most powerful of the world's nations reduced to helplessness before the threats of a group of terrorists in Iran, and we ask what is the meaning of power?
We see Soviet tanks roll into Afghanistan in a brutal and arrogant takeover of a nation. We watch and wonder at this aggression, and we watch and wonder all the more when retaliation consists of an American threat to boycott the Olympic games. It is an exaggeration to suggest that there is a feeling of helplessness growing among ordinary citizens when they witness the helplessness of a major power.
There is a feeling that somewhere along the line we have lost control. Events have overrun us and developed a momentum of their own. This uneasiness exists in spite of the fact that big business has provided us with ever-increasing wealth. Big labour has made sure that the work force gets its share of economic benefits, and big government has so organized the social structures that, in its role of referee, it finds itself in a position where it must attempt to maintain order and a due proportion in the returns allocated to its important and not always silent partners.

In spite of all those developments, today Canadian citizens are more and more isolated from the powers that be. They are entirely dependent upon government, business and labour superstructures which are the framework of our democratic society. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of our constituents fall into that category of helpless citizens when dealing with large bureaucracies. Those defenceless taxpayers are but pawns in the power play between the major representatives of the community and they have no opportunity for effective action except for exercising their right to vote every four years. This is a very frustrating situation.
Mr. Speaker, I am far from declaring illegitimate or unacceptable the government business and labour democracies that have developed in our society over the last 50 years or so. Obviously the structural gigantism of government, business and labour is a normal and unavoidable phenomenon in an advanced democratic society, particularly in a country like ours where the people are scattered over a vast territory.

April 15. 1980
The Address-Mr. Desmarais
Modern governments are virtually the only ones able to provide various services such as communications, postal service, welfare and others.

in a society as intricately structured as ours, the difficulties encountered by government in perceiving and resolving the interests of the individual citizens are many and complex. The result is that, from many points of view, individuals today, although enjoying a large degree of constitutional freedom, are nevertheless placed under growing constraints in the conduct of their own affairs.
It is true that political parties and governments throughout the western world, since World War 1 and before, have been preoccupied with the need to improve the human condition. The purpose of the policies and programs to which almost all parties without exception paid lip service was to ensure that the substance of liberty and benefit of freedom in real terms- that is an adequate standard of living with a right to equal opportunity-should be available to all.
Chimeric as such objectives might seem in the light of what is happening in the world today, the true democrat, the true liberal, the true believer in human freedom will not despair. Nor will he ever relinquish the hope of making it possible for all men to enjoy the fruits of the creative society; that is, a society in which leisure to contribute and create is brought about, not by forced unemployment but by an arrangement of working conditions and social awareness, enabling people to enjoy the benefits accrued through an incredibly complex system of worldwide industrial relationships.
That system has now developed to a point where it has reached a peak of efficiency never equalled in history in producing everything except human contentment. In the process we may be in danger of surrendering our heritage for a mess of multinational pottage. It may be this realization which explains the nostalgia movement, the good earth movement and the no-growth movement. But you cannot have no-growth industrially and politically without having no-growth intellectually and morally. The slogan, "Stop the world, I want to get off', is not applicable in political affairs.
Let me say right away that, in the history of this nation, succeeding Liberal administrations, with different leaders and sometimes differing policies and programs, nevertheless have been remarkably consistent in creating the necessary infrastructure to cope with basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter, and, I might add, the additional ingredients of hope for a better tomorrow.

Governments must often take initiatives which should come from the private sector but which the latter is unable to take in due time because of its shortcomings. Let us take, for example, corporations such as Polysar, Eldorado, Panarctic and Petro-Can. Combined with ever-increasing responsibilities in all fields of social activity these types of government initiatives
are such that day by day, the modern state is becoming a terribly heavy bureaucracy which finds it difficult to perceive the needs of the ordinary taxpayer. Big business is motivated by the same demands as big government. Our consumer society has created needs which small and medium-size businesses fail to meet because of the pace of modern living. Consequently, big business tends to spread to all sectors of industrial and commercial activities. In doing so, little by little it eliminates small business, thus forcing an increasingly large number of workers to retrain or to collect unemployment insurance. As with any human structure, commercial firms have always tended to develop into large power conglomerates; very often, these conglomerates tend to withdraw to their ivory towers and therefore to become further and further removed from the people. They become less and less able to recognize the true needs of individuals which they have been entrusted to serve and whose welfare should be their ultimate goal.
The citizen himself is practically prevented, even through his government, from exerting any influence on such large and complex corporations as Exxon, General Motors, ITT and other multinationals whose position is similar to that of city-states in the Middle Ages, that is beyond and outside the effective control of governments. In spite of all the abuse heaped on big business in general and on multinationals in particular, it remains that those corporations, precisely because they are huge, are in a position to meet mass consumer needs while providing a livelihood to millions of individuals.
The substantial growth of those corporations has naturally led labour organizations to become more and more powerful. There is no doubt that, precisely because of their power, labour organizations have contributed to greatly improve the lot of workers, especially in the public sector and among highly skilled trades.
Today, contrary to the situation prevailing some ten years ago, the boss is often at the mercy of the workers. Union members nowadays are part of a labour elite and not only are they in a position to protect themselves, they become as powerful as management.

In spite of this, Mr. Speaker, our producing and distributing system seems to have a built-in imbalance which makes for unequal sharing of these world goods. Production, both in quality and quantity, seems unable to close the enormous gaps which still exist. And gaps are growing as the disparity between the affluence and luxury of the west and the poverty and hopelessness of a major part of the Third World continues to widen.
In our own society inflation is taking away from workers and those on fixed incomes many of the economic gains which they won over the years. Canadian workers, among the most skilled and highly trained in the world, have seen hard-won gains siphoned away by run-away inflation. Perhaps this is the price we must pay for some phases of social security development. This fact alone makes it incumbent on governments to
April 15, 1980

reduce to a minimum, short-sighted, extravagant, wasteful and non-productive programs which are too often aimed at securing the allegiance of the electorate, rather than contributing to a healthy economy. We, as individual citizens, pay a heavy price for the organizations which we have put in place to deliver the goods and services our society requires.
Recently I listened with admiration and respect as the leader of the Quebec Liberal party spoke in the Assembly on the crucial issue of Quebec's place in Canada. That speech was a model of lucidity, of calm and temperate argument, of forthrightness and honesty of which all Canadians can be proud. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that when he spoke of his love for Canada, of his roots in this country and of the roots of all Quebeckers, and when he said that the attachment of Quebeckers to Canada was "visceral", it was difficult indeed not to be moved by the sincerity of his patriotism. May I say that 1 share those sentiments, as I am sure does every Quebec member in this House.
Sometimes as one considers the dark and terrible problems hovering over the world, one cannot help but think that we in Canada, regardless of the language in which we express ourselves, are indeed fortunate. At the same time we recognize the existence of individual dissatisfaction, anxiety, dislocation and anguish among both young and old. I attribute these reactions to the phenomenon of depersonalization and institutionalization which is so much a part of our lives.
On a world scale, it would appear useful to review the highlights of the report of a commission headed by Willy Brandt, former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. This report, representing years of independent study by 18 world leaders, was submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kurt Waldheim, on February 12, 1980, and is entitled, "A Program for Survival".
The picture is one of a world in which the economic system of production, distribution is progressively breaking down.
Starvation, inflation, disorder, escalating unemployment, international monetary confusion, competition for energy, food, and raw materials, increasing population, advancing deserts, overfishing and pollution are some of the horrors described in this authoritative document.
Let us look at some of the specifics. In the western world there are 18 million people out of work. This unemployment is largely located in countries where a subsistence level is required in order to purchase food and provide shelter and heat.
Irreversible destruction of the ecology is taking place in a number of countries, many of them ranked among the world's poor nations. Deforestation is going on apace, and present world wood stocks will be cut in half by the year 2000. World population is growing by one million every five days. There will be two billion additional people to feed in the next 20 years, and there are 800 million below the subsistence level today.
The Address-Mr. Desmarais
In the affluent society of the west, each person consumes 100 times as much energy as people in the poorer countries of the Third World.
These are among some of the more chilling facts in the Brandt report. 1 do not cite them in order to impress or stun the House, but merely to show the powerful and cumulative impact of the failure of our system to reach those in greatest need.
The Brandt report makes a powerful appeal for a tough, hard-nosed and realistic approach involving, it is true, sacrifices on the part of the west. Better enlightened sacrifice now than chaos later!
The Brandt report calls for a world summit to consider a massive transfer of funds to developing countries, an international energy strategy, a global food program, and reform of the international monetary and financial system.
All of these proposals are worth serious study, and 1 am sure they will receive that study from the dedicated men and women at the head of our affairs. I know that the very gifted and knowledgeable Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is aware of these initiatives and has them under study at the present time. We all recall his notable participation as the chairman of a world conference on north-south problems.
There is also a proposal for an oil strategy to guarantee supplies and prices in the world, and I am sure this is being studied with interest by the responsible minister.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, please let me emphasize my concern regarding our complex and massive institutions. Our institutions have become more powerful and egocentric than ever before. Governments, business, and labour all vigorously defend their point of view without realizing that they are doing so at the expense of the two-thirds of our population which happen to be unorganized. As a result our citizen is progressively losing his battle to shape his own destiny.
1 submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is a major objective of modern government, after basic needs are met, to create conditions in which the individuals, while retaining control over his identity and personality, can devote his leisure time to creative activities in arts and culture.
When one thinks of the golden age of the Renaissance, or the Victorian age in literature-a period when writers, artists, composers, architects, engineers, scientists, competed in excellence in Europe and America-these periods stand out for the productive use of leisure. Certainly, along with the Elizabethan age, as A. L. Rouse has written, they represented societies that were both dynamic and creative.
It is a fact that our society faces important problems in the economic and fiscal areas and in the areas of international relations and internal cohesiveness. We must address ourselves to problems of the economy and problems of internal unity.
I am confident that by skill, patience and understanding, these problems will be overcome and Canada will march into a new era or progress. But we must know where we are going and how we are going to get there. In the field of energy, we

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Desmarais
must conserve, we must develop new sources of energy and we must diversify. I am confident that these things will happen.
1 recall that when the United States refused to join Canada in building the St. Lawrence Seaway, Louis St. Laurent said Canada would take the initiative, and we did. Today, we face equally important and challenging decisions with regard to getting energy to market-Bay of Fundy tidal power, northern gas pipelines, moving clean, pure water from the northern watershed to the water-starved cities of the eastern seaboard. To the resolution of these challenges we must bring the same kind of enlightened and patriotic daring that motivated Prime Minister St. Laurent 30 years ago.
Returning to the creative society, our country can do a great deal more to support art and culture than we have ever done. We can do more to bring out into the sunlight of public acclaim the cultures of other races than English or French; the many races who settled in Canada bringing with them the cultural dynanism of the old world. These we must recognize and accept, and to them we must accord the kind of recognition that will result in a new and vibrant form of social expression.
Thomas Jefferson saw the key problem of the modern world, the problem of the individual. A more ancient book said that man does not live by bread alone. Individuals require the social buttressing that comes from institutions that are progressive and flexible, with clearly spelled out and agreed upon purposes. Individuals require also to live and work in a cultural context with which they are familiar and which contributes to their spiritual well-being. When people sense that they are participating in a society that is creative and dynamic, then they are aware of social and spiritual well-being. Great works of art, architecture, ballet, theatre, and yes, triumphs of engineering, help to overcome the depersonalization of institutions and the constraints applied to individual self-expression.
What is modern man to do, Mr. Speaker, faced with the bigness, impersonality, declining standards, self-serving policies, and waste of many modern institutions? I strongly believe that the human personality is crying out for the opportunity to redeem its own soul. Is this too far-fetched? Are humanity and integrity becoming permanently submerged by our mass institutional imperatives?
Henri Bergson wrote "II faut a l'homme un supplement d'ame"-something to satisfy the spirit. Without this, in the long term, our affluence, technology, our GNP and our prosperity will become increasingly irrelevant.
In the sixties our own young people rejected the values of the corporatist-military state, along with much of its affluence. Today, many of the values of the western world, our acquisitiveness, our greed, our unconcern and disdain for human perspectives, our fatal death wish which sees us polluting the environment with reckless disregard-all of these are totally repulsive to the older civilizations of the Third World.
It is our particular function, in line with the findings of the Brandt report, to establish priorities between technology and human values; between scientific accomplishments and the
preservation of the human soul-that is man's capacity to preserve his individual integrity and order his own destiny.
In essence the issue is whether the social structure will be designed in accordance with the needs of the many or simply to perpetuate the tyranny of the few. Whether we are speaking of government tyranny, the tyranny of the media, the tyranny of great corporations, or merely of the all enveloping tyranny of mediocrity, the final result is the same.

Even if we have failed to develop fully this potential of human freedom which we hold so dear, we are witness to the horror of enslavement that is steadily gaining ground in Communist totalitarian countries. All eastern Europe is under the Communist yoke. In Africa, some Communist governments remain in power with the help of Russian tanks and Cuban guns. In Southeast Asia, the idealists who looked upon the Viet Nam war as a war of liberation recognize with terror that their worst fears are coming true. The almost diabolical strength of Russian communism has now caused a genocide unequaled since Hitler's.
President Lincoln once said that the United States could not survive with half of the population reduced to slavery. Men of good will must now recognize that the world cannot survive with one-half of its population free and the other half enslaved, and that Russian communism is behind this cloud of slavery which is spreading over the world.
In pursuing its goal, nothing can stop the U.S.S.R., and the sad situation of the people in Afghanistan is only one example. As a matter of fact, it can truly be said that man's right to exercise his freedom is more threatened than it ever was in the dark ages. Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that we are on the brink of a new dark era where the freedom of man will become a pale light in an ocean of darkness. I feel it is our duty, to the extent that we believe in freedom and democracy, to keep that light shining. Fortunately, there are still signs of hope.
During the recent election in Rhodesia, we were struck by the moderation shown by the black leader, Joseph Mugabe, in dealing with the white people in his country. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that the same moderation will be the key, one of the solutions to our problems, instead of building on fear and hate, as the Marxists do, that man has opted for moderation and compromise, and is urging the whites of Rhodesia to share in the development of the African society in a new spirit of dignity. Mr. Speaker, that is the course to follow.
Specialization has enabled us to channel our efforts quickly in new fields of endeavour. As John Donne said, "No man is an island", we can say the same without hesitation about our governments. They must apply themselves to understanding what is going on in the world, apply themselves to defining the objectives to be pursued and finding the means to achieve them. Our survival depends, Mr. Speaker, on our capacity to adapt to the major changes forced upon us. Our decisions must be taken in the light of those changes.
April 15, 1980

Allow me to express once again my concern for the citizen as an individual. Allow me to suggest to the governments that they take time to consult and listen to the citizens and their institutions to get a better idea of where the priorities lie. Freeing the human spirit is the ultimate goal of all social activities. Creativity is at the very basis of all social achievement. The importance of human contribution to our decisionmaking process must be reaffirmed. That is the characteristic of a creative society and the aim 1 recommend to our leaders in all spheres of human activity.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate you and Madam Speaker on your appointments to these very important positions in the House.
Since this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I would like first to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Peterborough riding for sending me to Ottawa as their representative. It is less than a year since I first entered federal politics and already I have been involved in two rather quick repetitive federal elections, quicker than I would like to have seen. However, I am grateful for the support 1 have received from my colleagues in the House. I am also grateful for the support that I have received from members opposite because it was due to their policies that 1 was able to gain this seat.
There are a number of reasons why 1 am proud to represent the constituency of Peterborough. Mine is only one of 282 ridings in the country, but all other constituencies would be hard pressed to match the physical beauty and the quality of the Kawarthas. With a population approaching approximately
100,000	people, Peterborough county is the gateway to the Kawartha Lakes, one of Canada's prime tourist attractions. Two-thirds of my constituents live in an urban environment and most of those are located in the beautiful city of Peterborough. Many of the remaining one-third farm some of the best agricultural land in Ontario.
Mine is a riding like few others in Canada because within a ten-minute drive of the huge General Electric plant in downtown Peterborough are some of Canada's best lakes, finest fishing and most beautiful parks. My riding is also one which realizes how essential it is to look after its young people. Our educational system is second to none and includes an excellent elementary and secondary school system as well as Sir Sanford Fleming College and Trent University. To the young people in my riding I send my sincere appreciation for their support in the past election.
The issues in Peterborough county are the same as in most ridings with a rural-urban population mix. More than 72 per cent of the homes in Peterborough county are owned by the occupants. That figure is well above the Canadian average of 62 per cent and the Ontario average of 63 per cent. As a result, many of my constituents are gravely concerned about the current levels of high interest rates.
The Address-Mr. Domm
Because of the Kawartha Lakes and the importance of tourism in the Peterborough area, environmental issues are also in the front rank. Two environmental issues in particular, acid rain and Eurasian milfoil, pose grave threats to my riding, as they do to other parts of Canada, including British Columbia. I will be directing many of my efforts in this House to these two areas, the economy and the environment.
In many ways Peterborough has been fortunate as Canada enters the 1980s. After several years in the economic doldrums during the mid-seventies Peterborough began to perk up in 1979, and last October unemployment hit a five-year low. Employment in the major industries, particulary at General Electric which employs over 4,500 people, has been very encouraging.
The people of Peterborough are also looking forward to the arrival in our city of the Parks Canada regional office from Cornwall. Although the new government has been reconsidering the move, economic common sense dictates that the transfer be carried through. It was work researched by the Liberal government and acted on by the Conservative Parliament. Because of its more central Ontario location, Peterborough riding is much better suited to serve the province of Ontario than the present location of the regional office in the southeast corner.
I remind hon. members that there seemed to be very little objection to the Quebec branch of Parks Canada moving out of Cornwall and going to Quebec. As well, to serve the interests of national unity and to meet the needs of the Francophone employees of Parks Canada office personnel, the two school boards in Peterborough county have already made plans to introduce Peterborough's first French-immersion program. All in all, it bodes rather well for the future of our country. At a time of the referendum vote I find it very encouraging that the government has seen fit to move Parks Canada to Peterborough, and Peterborough in turn has seen fit to introduce French immersion for the Francophones.
As a relative newcomer to the House 1 would not make my maiden speech without commenting upon impressions I gained during the short Thirty-first Parliament. Although our time in power was brief I feel we did accomplish a great deal. When the Progressive Conservative government of the Thirty-first Parliament is remembered and written about by the historians, it will be because of the two major issues of the 1980s, that is to say, energy and the economy. Perhaps our defeat on February 18 might be compared to the case of the patient who switches doctors because he does not like the diagnosis.
In hindsight many have said that we should not have introduced such a tough budget and that we should have offered more in the way of goodies. That may have been good politics but it would not have been what this country needed.
It is interesting that shortly after the February election, President Jimmy Carter announced massive changes in the 1980-1981 American budget. His proposals included plans for a ten cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline; spending cuts of some $14 billion; a 20,000-person reduction in the civil service, and the first balanced budget in the United States-at least in

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Domm
the last 12 years, or as long as I can remember. When 1 first heard the thrust of the Carter budget I got the feeling that perhaps we had lost the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), that he might have moved to Washington and his budget had turned up disguised as President Carter's antiinflation program.
I cannot say strongly enough how proud I am to be associated with this party. The leadership shown by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and his cabinet during the Thirty-first Parliament and the winter election campaign, makes me very confident about our new role in the Thirty-second Parliament. We can hold our heads high. We told the people how it was. We told them that the free ride was over and it was time to address the major problems in our economy today, problems like high interest rates, inflation and deficits, and how we proposed to deal with those things.
Members opposite felt it was time to bring down that government. They felt they had alternatives they would like to present. 1 say to them that they are absolving themselves of all responsibility in the financial management of this country if they neglect to bring in a budget within 60 days. 1 feel very strongly that you cannot stand in the House of Commons day after day, week after week, and month after month, and tell us as opposition and critics, which is our role, that you are not going to introduce a budget for another several months.
i wish I could say I had the same feelings of confidence about the new government that I had about the last government and their financially accountable budget. The throne speech we heard this week offered absolutely no help for the thousands of Canadians suffering because of the current interest rate crisis. Perhaps the clearest comment on the speech was in the reaction of the money markets. The Canadian dollar dropped by more than half a cent in value in one day following the speech, as reported in the Globe and Mail.
We in Peterborough have seen the new government's indecisiveness at another level. The minister responsible for Parks Canada, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), announced on March 12 of this year that he would make a final decision regarding the transfer of the Parks Canada regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough within ten to 14 days. The first deadline passed on March 22. The second deadline passed on March 26. It is now April 15. Maybe the minister is too busy. Maybe he is indecisive. Maybe he cannot make up his mind. Maybe he has not had enough study in seven years with regard to where Parks Canada should be located.
The fact is that neither the minister nor his colleagues can make a decision. This is important, and not only to Peterborough. It is important to the people of Cornwall and those families who have moved to Peterborough and are commuting to Cornwall in order to do their job. The employees affected by the lack of decision-making on the part of the government are 20 families who have already purchased homes in Peterborough, plus approximately 125 families in the process of deciding where to enrol their young people in school. In addition, accommodation has been acquired in Peterborough and the building is vacant awaiting a decision by the minister. Many civil servants and their families are living in a town at the cost of the taxpayers of Canada with no job to do. The vacillation shown by the minister in this matter was an indication of what we could expect from the Liberal government at the opening session of the Thirty-second Parliament.
My constituents are also very anxious and concerned to hear about another government decision which it is having a great deal of difficulty making. It will affect the Peterborough riding. This decision is with regard to the constituency of Durham-Northumberland. That constituency was recently the victim of a horrible natural disaster when flooding caused millions of dollars of damage to the town of Port Hope. Last summer Eldorado Nuclear, a federal Crown corporation, announced it would construct a $100 million refinery in Hope township near Port Hope just south of Peterborough.
Last summer the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-1 do not see him in the chamber this evening-announced that for the time being he was going to stop the progress affecting the construction of Eldorado Nuclear.
Last month, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, a federal Crown corporation, announced it would construct a $100 million uranium refinery in Hope township near Port Hope.


An hon. Member:: You already read that.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Last month the new minister decided to review that in the same way the ministry is reviewing Parks Canada. He made that announcement at the same time as the town was digging out from the $10 million damage caused by the flood. He made that announcement despite the flood, despite the impending closure of the Firestone Canada plant in nearby Whitby, and despite the fact it will cost $24.5 million more to construct the refinery in northern Ontario, as well as an additional $3 million in operating costs to build it in the north.
I would like to know why such a decision would be made at a time when unemployment is 2 per cent higher in Port Hope than in northern Ontario and when $3 million has already been spent on site preparation in Hope township. Common decency says a community should not be kicked while it is already down. I urge the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) to allow the project to proceed in Hope township as common sense dictates, as Liberal research indicated, and as Conservative action proved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: You laugh; it's your research.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It's even cheaper to build it in the States.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They are even suggesting we build it in the United States.
On another level, I am curious as to what steps the new government will take to help those affected by the current high
April 15, 1980

interest rates. The throne speech was long on generalities but very short on specifics as to how interest rate problems will be handled. Considering that the program the Conservative party put forward for mortgage interest deductibility was attacked for nearly a year by the Liberal party-not all, some liked it and some voted for it-I would like to know exactly what it intends to do to help Canadian home owners.
We were told by members opposite that our mortgage deductibility plan would help the rich. However, it is now estimated that thousands of these Canadian rich people might lose their homes. It is interesting to read some of the comments made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) when sitting in opposition during the last Parliament. I will quote what the Liberal minister said in this House last November. He said that "approximately 400,000 families must renegotiate their mortgages after the interest rate has risen by close to four percentage points. We are facing a lot more bankruptcies and defaults; that is what we are facing." He asked what the government was going to do about it.
I trust the new government will remember these comments made by the minister at that time and that it will take action to reduce interest rates, or at least figure out a way to give assistance to home owners, not the rich, but the 400,000 people the minister said will be affected.
The new government should be condemned for approving the Bank of Canada's new method of determining interest rate increases. It is a blatant arrogant method of abrogating responsibility.
It is also interesting to recall some of the comments made by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) while he was opposition critic in the last Parliament. I again go back to last November. The Liberal minister said, "The Liberals and 1 generally want action taken now to prevent the hardship this Conservative high interest rate policy is creating for millions of Canadians and their families". As I said, these interest rates have risen more than 2 per cent since the election of the new government, and we are still waiting to see what action will be taken to help the small businessman, home owners and farmers. Let all Canadians see what specific actions the government now intends to take. Let us see what is planned. We asked in the question period today what the government might propose and when it might propose a new budget. The answer was a flat "no" to the end-of-May date given.
When I first decided to seek election to the House two years ago, I did so as a businessman and a consumer who was provoked by what years of mismanagement had done to the economy of this country. I was ashamed that thousands of Canadians were out of work, that federal spending was out of control, and that the federal government was building up huge deficits year after year. I was disgusted that inflation was eating up the savings of Canadians in my riding and across the country. I believed last December, and I still believe, that during his term as minister of finance the hon. member for St.
The Address-Mr. Domm
John's West put the economy of this country back on the right track.
I still think we have to reduce and eliminate the huge federal deficits before we will ever come to grips with the twin problems of inflation and high interest rates.
I was disappointed with the statement in the throne speech which downplayed the importance of reducing the federal deficit, and I disagree completely with the assertion that Canadians do not want less government. That is what it says in the throne speech. The ministers in the new government certainly have not yet figured out exactly what the people of Canada are saying. They are saying they want less spending, less government, less inflation, and less interest. Of course we want more effective government, but that more effective government also goes hand in hand with trimming away the fat and reducing the size of the civil service.
To my mind the federal government in the past decade has taken on all the characteristics of a giant octopus, with its tentacles reaching into every part and corner of the country, sucking every dollar and every cent out of the people in business, stores, on farms, in counties, cities and high rise towers in Toronto and Montreal. What is it all for? Is it really necessary for a government to get this involved in the lives of Canadians? 1 just wonder how this country would have developed at all if the explorers and settlers who opened up Canada had to dodge piles of Statistics Canada and tax forms, or cross mountains of regulations or rivers lined with bureaucrats.
As I mentioned earlier tonight, one of my prime concerns and one of the major issues affecting my constituents in the Peterborough riding is the matter of acid rain. The minister of the environment in the last Parliament, the Thirty-first Parliament, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), recognized the problem of acid rain as one of the most serious problems which has ever faced our country. I hope that the new minister will take the same approach. If we as a Parliament do not start to take measures to deal with acid rain soon, we will leave a horrible legacy of lifeless lakes for our children.
It is a frightening prospect that our lakes and fishing and tourist industries, all the things which are so vital and important to my riding and to many other ridings in Canada, are damaged, and ignored by the present government in its throne speech as it addresses the subject of environmental protection, which is completely absent from the throne speech. It is even more alarming that the ability of the soil and the crops we grow and the forests could also be impaired if this insidious problem is allowed to continue unabated.
The hon. member opposite who spoke just before me, giving his maiden speech, talked about millions and billions of people, "deforestation" and the cost and the necessity of food, and 1 say that with acid rain falling on us at its present rate of 11 ounces an acre we will have major problems in supplying our own food and our own forest industry if we do not address the subject and present legislation to control effectively the acidity fallout that is affecting our lakes, trees, forests and plant life.

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Domm
The joint Canadian and American study on acid rain released last fall indicated that some lakes in the Haliburton-Muskoka area of south central Ontario have already lost from 40 per cent to 75 per cent of their acid neutralizing ability in the past decade.
In addition-and this is scary-there are 140 lakes in Ontario, mostly in the Sudbury area, which are already acidified at the present time. They are dead to life, dead to fish, dead to plant life, and dead for human consumption.
The problem is not limited to Ontario because similar results are turning up in the maritime provinces, the United States, western Europe, Scandinavia, and Japan.
Acid precipitation threatens to get worse as oil prices cause electrical utilities to turn to coal to produce electricity. The costs to begin to combat acid rain are going to be tremendous. During the last Parliament we in this House heard that it will cost Canadians between $350 million and $500 million annually over the remainder of this century just to bring about a 50 per cent reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions in eastern Canada. Similar estimates in the eastern United States run as high as $7 billion annually. That is a lot of money, but 1 remind the House that the forest product industry in Canada is a $17.5 billion industry, and we have to protect that industry. We learned the lesson in Scandinavia ten years ago of what will happen if we do not put the necessary programs in place to purify the air and to purify emissions before we have acid rain fallout.
Even though that sounds like a great deal of money-and indeed it is a great deal of money-we in this House have to remember that there is more at stake here than just hard economics. The real issue is our lakes, our people, and the kind of future we are going to provide for our children. The real issue is the survival of our environment as we know it today. This is an issue which crosses party lines, and 1 ask that the Minister of the Environment give it top priority as he pursues his duties.
Another major issue in my riding-and with this one I would like to close my remarks on the throne speech-and one that may become important in many more ridings, is that as of next year metrication is again going to take flight. We in Peterborough had the misfortune to be chosen as one of the three test areas for the implementation of metrication in our stores. I do not like to sound facetious, but I wonder if the people of Sherbrooke and the people of Kamloops enjoyed the honour of being guinea pigs as much as we in Peterborough did.
Of course the Metric Commission, in its infinite Liberal wisdom, chose to begin metrication in the retail sector in Peterborough at the height of our tourist season when thousands of Americans and Canadians are visiting and passing through the riding on their way to the Kawartha Lakes.
During the last Parliament the Conservative government appointed an overview committee to study metrication and, following its recommendations, the conversion process was postponed for at least a year. Now it has been announced that
the process will continue early next year in over 20 cities in Canada. The point of the delay was to give Canadians a chance to debate the merits of immediate metrication, a chance they never had, and as the Conservative minister of state for small businesses, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), said after announcing the postponement last December, there was little urgency for proceeding immediately because the metrication program in the United States was seven to nine years behind that of ours in Canada.
My only question is: why the rush, why not give Canadians a chance to debate the issue, why force metrication on the people of Canada when there are three cities where the results of that forced metrication could be reviewed? The result is disastrous.


Mr. Pelletier:: The results were positive.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: If you think they are good in Peterborough, then come on down and visit us and we will show you how good they are.


Irénée Pelletier: There was not a single complaint.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: If this Thirty-second Parliament refuses to listen to the people of Canada, refuses to respond to their wishes to have their day in court, to have that moment of trial here in the House of Commons, there might be disastrous results. Maybe everyone opposite likes the metric system. Maybe all of us on this side have some things we like about that system. But what is the point of being ten years ahead of the United States? What is the point of implementing a form of metric measure that is foreign to most in the world?
What is the point of implementing the metric system in Canada when only 4 per cent of our export market, including Germany, is on the metric system? Germany is still buying four-by-eights, and so is Japan. The wood should fit your home when you instal it. What is the rush? The metric system has never had its day in court and Parliament has never discussed it. Never has a piece of legislation come through this House which has said that the government wants the metric system to be adopted in Canada.
I say to the new government-and I hesitate to call it the new government because this is the old government with the same, tired ideas-review the metric system before its implementation.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I hope this is not another example of Liberal arrogance with which we became so familiar during the Thirtieth Parliament. We want answers to fight inflation. We want answers to cut government spending. We want to reduce the size of the bureaucracy. We want to get the interest rates in line with what people can afford. If the government will not listen, it will be held accountable and an election might come about sooner than any of us would like to see it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 15, 1980


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With your permission I should like to ask the hon. gentleman who just spoke if he would like to respond to a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Peterborought (Mr. Domm) has taken up his entire time, and it would require the unanimous consent of the House to engage in that kind of a discussion. Unless I hear unanimous consent, I will have to go next to the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead). Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Scarborough West.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that it is a great honour to rise once again on behalf of the people of Scarborough West. May I congratulate Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides (Madam Sauve), on behalf of the residents of Scarborough West and assure her of my attention to her guidance. With the selection of the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides as Speaker of the House we may have established somewhat of a precedent, but I am sure it will be the impartial and informed leadership of Her Honour that will mark her term as Speaker of this House.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) on his selection as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. May I take this opportunity also to congratulate the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, and also yourself, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), on your appointment as Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. Perhaps I could also congratulate my old friend and one time seat mate, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), on his appointment as chief government whip. It is a difficult and sometimes frustrating position, but 1 am sure he will be a great success.
I also wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for expressing his confidence in me by appointing me Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a very large, interesting, and diversified department, and I am looking forward to facing its challenges and to helping its very capable minister in every way possible.
Before discussing some of the issues that concern me, I would like to touch briefly on two other matters. I wish to pay tribute to the dean of the House of Commons in years of service, namely, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I am happy he is here tonight. I do not always agree with him on specific policy or procedural matters, but his willingness to talk to and advise a rookie member of Parliament from another party when we worked together on
The Address-Mr. Weatherhead
the committee on labour in the Twenty-eighth Parliament was greatly appreciated.
I had the honour of being elected the first member of Parliament for the new riding of Scarborough West in 1968 and was here until 1972. In the seven and a half years since that time, the riding has been very fortunate in being represented by excellent members of Parliament from the three parties. John Harney, the MP from 1972 to 1974 for the NDP, is widely known and well regarded. He ran very strongly for the national leadership of his party on two different occasions. Alan Martin won the riding back for the Liberal party in 1974 and had an active and distinguished five-year term here, latterly as parliamentary secretary to the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs, and to the then minister of finance. Last May, Bill Wightman was elected to represent the Progressive Conservative Party and was immediately appointed parliamentary secretary to the then minister of labour in recognition of his able career in the labour relations field. I will attempt to carry on and uphold the high standard set by these men in representing the people of Scarborough West and of Canada.
Scarborough West is a riding of approximately 90,000 persons in almost 30,000 households. Of this number, about
17.000	households are privately owned, and the remaining
13.000	are occupied by renters. Slightly more than 15 per cent of the population claim their language to be other than English and French, and the balance is mostly English speaking. With a diversity of ethnic, economic and educational backgrounds, Scarborough West is both a distinct community and an accurate reflection of the concerns of Canada as a whole.
As Scarborough West is an older suburb of metropolitan Toronto, many home owners have lived there for many years. Through their hard work and diligent saving, many of their mortgages are fully paid off. Therefore, they might ask why subsidies are proposed now when they had no such assistance in their day. But all would agree that these are extraordinary times. Never have interest rates escalated as rapidly as they have in the past year. In that time, rates on first mortgages have almost doubled through no fault of persons who must now renegotiate their mortgages. I therefore commend the government for its undertaking in the Speech from the Throne to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) indicated this afternoon that the criterion as to who will be entitled to aid will be based largely on the usual ratio between the home owner's cost of carrying the house on his total income. This should ensure that any subsidies will not place too great a burden on taxpayers as a whole.
Also I wish to commend the government and the minister responsible for CMHC for the initiatives which have been taken in the very particular special circumstances of those home owners under the AHOP program. On the same basis it is important and timely that assistance for farmers and small business will be extended through raising the ceiling for loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act under the Small Businesses Loans Act to $100,000.

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Weatherhead
The question of interest rates themselves, their so-called floating status and everything related thereto, are very controversial and bring forward strong arguments from experts on all sides. I do not pretend to have all the facts at my disposal tonight on this very important matter, but since there were a large number of new members of Parliament elected last February, and since the economic situation is constantly changing, I think it would be useful to reconsider the whole matter in the appropriate standing committee as quickly as possible. I understand from the comments of the Minister of Finance this afternoon that he is not opposed to this course and that a reference to the appropriate standing committee will be made after the committees have been formally set up.
One of the concerns of all industrial nations is energy security. The most optimistic among us will concede that oil will soon be replaced as a primary source of energy. Therefore 1 am encouraged that the government is recommending the establishment of an alternative energy corporation. As well, the government is committed to see that 1.5 per cent of the gross national product will be spent on research and development. These two developments recognize the talent, climate, and vast distances in Canada, and will lead to the establishment of Canada as one of the world leaders in the field of energy technology.
In my first speech in the House of Commons back in November, 1968, I mentioned my hope that certain reforms in parliamentary procedure would be effected to expedite the business of the House. While some reforms have taken place since then, I submit there is still much to be done. I am fully aware of the good and valid arguments for the necessity of opposition members of Parliament and indeed of government backbenchers being allowed sufficient time to put forward their points of view. However, surely hon. members will agree that there is no need for excessively long speeches by individual members of Parliament. I would think most of the time that 20 minutes would be ample.
The business of government is becoming more complex. There are always different pieces of legislation and other business competing for parliamentary time. Parliamentary time is a scarce resource and surely it should be used as profitably as possible, as long as the rights of members, particularly those of the opposition, are respected. Also 1 would like to suggest that there is a need to re-examine seriously the role of standing committees of the House of Commons with a view to making them more independent and useful to the people of Canada. Considerable work has been done on this question by all three parties in the House, and 1 would hope for some concrete results as quickly as possible. There are many other aspects of parliamentary reform which should be considered, and I hope to speak further about this very important matter on some future occasion.
Since Scarborough West is an older community, we have a higher proportion of senior citizens than many other parts of the country. The seniors are the most deserving of people; they are the ones who built the modern Canada. Their sacrifice
through the depression of the thirties and the Second World War was made even greater in that they raised their families through these difficult times. Therefore I fully agree with our campaign promise to raise the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security pension by $35 per month per household by July 1 of this year. This pledge has been reiterated in the Speech from the Throne. This will provide increased assistance to over 1.3 million senior Canadians. More important, however, in the long run will probably be the notice by the government in the throne speech to convene a national pension conference in the fall of this year as a forum to discuss providing better, more flexible and portable pensions in the private and public sectors.
Finally, I wish to refer to the most important issue facing Canada today-whether Canada itself will continue to exist in the face of the strong challenge from Rene Levesque and the government of Quebec. The referendum date of May 20 was announced today and these next five weeks will be of critical importance to the future of Canada. As one of English-lrish background, born and brought up in the Toronto area, it is difficult for me to express with any adequacy my strong feelings about the necessity of keeping Canada one.
We heard a very moving speech by the Prime Minister, and excellent contributions by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) this afternoon on this vital matter which contained passages of logic and quiet passion that 1 could not hope to duplicate. 1 can recall my pride and interest in travelling from my grandfather's farm in eastern Ontario, years ago as a boy, to Montreal and Quebec City, and being so proud that the province of Quebec was an excitingly different but integral part of our country of Canada. During my trips back to Quebec throughout the years as a lawyer, a sometime politician, and with my wife and children, the realization has never left me that Canada is so fortunate to have two founding peoples who share the same basic ideals.
Canada is truly unique among the nations of the world. Its culture today comes from many sources. From the contribution of the two founding peoples, it has grown to a nation of great international stature. Since its earliest beginnings Canada has welcomed people from all nations, races and economic backgrounds, relatively free from the shocks and tensions which have torn other nations apart. We have a nation which encourages diversity in its citizens, whatever their backgrounds. Our citizens are free to practise whatever cultural or religious beliefs they may have in the context of co-operation and tolerance.
Part of the international stature of Canada comes from the example of tolerance and diversity it gives to the world. It would be a tragedy, then, to allow this opportunity for growth and enrichment to slip through our grasp. I pray that the efforts of the Quebec federalists of all political parties will be crowned with success, and that the results on the evening of May 20 will herald a vote of confidence in our country and a new beginning for a more united and a more understanding Canada.
April 15, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this throne speech debate of the Thirty-second Parliament. I am especially happy to follow the speech of my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the only federal leader today, in my view, who is articulating the concerns of ordinary people in this country.
Also I am proud to represent the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway. That is a riding located in east and southeast Vancouver. They are working people, they are confident people, and they are self-reliant. They want a fair share of Canada's prosperity which by their labours they have the greatest share in creating. They want I think what all Canadians want, a prosperous and democratic Canada for their children and their children's children. For nine years they were represented in this House by Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, and I am conscious of the burden on me here in following in her noble traditions and great footsteps.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Many of my constituents are immigrants, as I am. As a matter of fact, I am a double immigrant. First as a young Scots lad I emigrated to Toronto in 1947 to live through the experience of Canada's first suburban post-war growth in, of all places, Etobicoke, and secondly as a young adult to Vancouver on the west coast to share in the coming of age of that wonderful and golden city.
Where I make sense in my remarks to follow, Mr. Speaker, 1 thank Canada's public education system which has served me so magnificently. Where I talk nonsense, I put that down to the fact that I was weaned at least in part by the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun.
Before I talk about some of the issues that particularly concern me, especially the energy issue, since I am the energy critic of our party, I want to refer briefly, as I feel almost compelled to do tonight, to the speech this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I have a note here from a member across the way asking me where my phone books are. The first speech I made in the House of Commons I delivered while on some phone books to make me a little taller. The member over there then started to heckle me. After giving me the phone books he started to say it was a Liberal platform.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's the best they had.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I can assure you it was a lot better than the ones they offered during the election campaign.
I want to speak, as I was saying, about some of the remarks the Prime Minister made in this House this afternoon. They reminded me, indeed, of constitutional law lectures at universi-
The Address-Mr. Waddell
ty. That was a subject which was a particular favourite of mine. I always remember the hours spent on detailed and logically exhilarating discussions of the most learned and obtuse constitutional questions. Those lecture took place in the afternoons. Then I would step out in the light of day at rush hour on University Avenue in Toronto and have to make my way home in the real world. When I listened to that rather obtuse and, in many ways, brilliant lecture this afternoon by the Prime Minister, I felt that somehow the real tragedy of this Prime Minister is that he is no longer in the real world of ordinary people.
He spoke eloquently of loyalty and patriotism and the need of our citizens to get a fair deal and a fair share of the wealth of the country, and he dissected logically the Quebec referendum question.
My constituents would ask whether this is the same man who promised a just society in 1968. Look what happened to that vision. This is a man, the Prime Minister, it seems to me, who was given power not once but twice by the Canadian people, in 1968 and 1974, to really move the country. They gave him power on other occasions, but on those particular occasions he was given the power to really move this country. It seems to me that chance comes to a politician once, but rarely twice in a lifetime, yet this Prime Minister, this fallen hero in many ways, frittered away his chance and his mandate to move this country.
We are now welcomed in the 1980s by men who are essentially of the 1950s. They have no credibility to me. The Prime Minister should not be surprised if my colleagues, my constituents, and many people in the country do not respond to his urgings, and that as a nation we do not respond.
I think my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa, put his finger on this matter very succinctly and brilliantly in his speech this afternoon when he said "politics requires action to meet the real needs of human beings". During the recent federal election campaign which we all suffered through, the cartoonist, the brilliant Asselin, caught the campaign beautifully in a cartoon in which he showed a DC-9 jet in the sky; the Liberal campaign plane. The caption underneath said, "Trudeau waving at the crowd from 30,000 feet". It was one of the most sleazy and cynical campaigns ever waged by the Liberal party. We, in British Columbia, could see that when the local Liberal candidates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 say that seriously, that it was sleazy. They raised the matter of oil ports. Can you imagine the Liberal party in British Columbia raising the issue of oil ports? I can see the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) nodding his head in agreement. Imagine them raising the issue of oil ports and blaming the Conservatives for possible oil spills off our magnificent coast when it was the failure of Liberal policy that caused those tankers to go down there in the first place.
As a result of the election we changed from a naive and incompetent government to one that is run by a small group of men, a dangerously small group of men in my opinion, led by a

April 15, 1980
54_	_	_
The Address-Mr. Waddell "Mr. Kurtz" figure right out of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", or perhaps more modernly a Colonel Kurtz from Coppola's film "Apocalypse Now".
The "enemy within" that the Prime Minister spoke about, it seems to me, is the unreformed, unenlightened, tired old retreaded Liberal Party in Canada. That is the "enemy within". Colonel Kurtz's throne speech is simply a steal from NDP rhetoric without, i submit, the commitment to carry it out.
Geoffrey Stevens wrote in his column in The Globe and Mail yesterday that the country finally has a choice between liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right. Although he is a journalist I very much admire, he is dead wrong on that issue. This is the last Liberal government we are going to see in Canada. I suggest to hon. members that they should wait until after the referendum. Wait until after the next election to see what happens. The Liberal party has nothing to offer any more to the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: It's funny that the people like us.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They don't like you out west and they are not going to like you in other parts of the country after a few months.
Take, for example, the freedom of information legislation. That is the critically important area of citizen access to government information. "The previous Trudeau government promised that too. Have we forgotten that? The Conservatives brought in a bill which needed some tightening, especially in the exemptions, but it was basically a good bill.
Ged Baldwin had this to say in the House of Commons on November 29, 1979:
When I leave here, as I fully intend to do when this Parliament is over .. . this permits me to leave knowing that the country will be in good hands and that there is no obstacle to prevent any hon. member, if he or she has an issue, from taking hold of that issue, fighting for it.. . and presenting that issue over and over again.
1 predict that those words will be quoted again and again by politicians in this House and by political scientists. Baldwin insisted on the critically important provision in that freedom of information bill that any dispute between the citizen and a minister on the release of a document should ultimately be decided by the courts. Michael Pitfield, the recycled Clerk of the Privy Council, in a recent speech about a month ago rejected that concept. He would let the minister make the decision, not the courts, and thus emasculate the bill. Perhaps journalist Stevens will be holding his breath for the bill, but I am not. I can see what is happening. Colonel Kurtz and his sidekick "The Pits" are going to emasculate the bill and that will be part of the pattern of this government-great promises not carried out.
1 want to speak a little bit about energy. In the throne speech the government sets the modest goal of 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry by 1990. This 50 per cent Canadian content is a familiar idea in this country. Look at our broadcasting regulations which have been on the books all these years, and which were intended to ensure the equality of Canadian opportunity on our own air waves. Somehow the idea has been subverted. All the Canadian programming is in the morning and afternoon, while the prime time is still filled with American production.
I fear the same thing will happen to the proposed "Canadi-anizing" of our petroleum industry. Foreigners will continue to dominate the valuable oil fields of southern Canada, where the lucrative light oils are found and where the profits are enormous. Canadian business is left with the fringe areas, the marginally productive wells, and the high risk exploration. 1 want to see Canadian companies having a piece of the prime, not the left-overs. I want assurances that the government policy will not amount to token participation in our petroleum industry by Canadians. I suggest to the government that the best way to get into the mainstream of Canada's petroleum industry would be to acquire one or two of the major companies, which already operate in the prime areas, in the prime time.
Production of conventional light crude oils will have dropped off from 1,255,000 barrels per day according to 1978 figures to 516,000 barrels per day in 1990. The highly profitable light oil production from Alberta will be a shadow of its former self by 1990. It will only be 40 per cent of its present production, and most wells will be into expensive secondary production or tertiary production techniques. Meanwhile, the oil industry will continue with the policy of reinvesting its massive profits in non-energy investments and in uranium.
The big oil companies see the writing on the wall. They are not stupid. They are getting out of oil now that they have made their fabulous profits. Now they are gaining a tight grip on the mining industry in Canada and a stranglehold on the uranium industry. What does this government propose to do? It proposes to gain 50 per cent control by 1990. It should be ashamed of that promise. It is too little and too late.
As NDP energy critic, I will have the opportunity of detailing what we would do in energy policy over the next few years. Our policy will be imaginative and it will be detailed. We would take Pctro-Canada and expand its stations, not cut it back like hon. members to my right. We would expand it from coast to coast so Canadians could fill up at their own stations and use their Canadian credit cards. Here in Ottawa, the nation's capital, one cannot buy a dollar's worth of Canadian gasoline from a Canadian station. We would end that. Why do we write ourselves short as a nation? Why can we not really develop an energy policy that is imaginative and expand Petro-Canada in that way?
There is no mention of natural gas exports in the Speech from the Throne. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have been selling the stuff off at record prices for a quick buck. We say that it is time to stop. We say that the minister should be instructing the National Energy Board that there will be no more selling off and no prebuilding of the Alaska pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 15, 1980


Ian Gardiner Waddell: An NDP government-and 1 hope that in my lifetime there will be one federally-would keep the good stuff, the accessible gas, for Canadians, and would pipe it throughout Canada.


An hon. Member:: All you can do is hope.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thought that would get a rise from members opposite. We would make sure that the proposed petroleum price auditing agency has teeth. It should report to Parliament and not to the department. I can just see, the Liberals in 1990, if they continue in government, saying as they are with regard to FIR A in 1980, "We would like further legislation to beef it up". They themselves created FIR A and now they are asking for further legislation.
The government is supply oriented. We in the NDP would advocate serious conservation measures. This is the real way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, will have his chance. Perhaps he will let me complete my remarks.


Mr. Simmons:: I was only trying to cool down your guys so I could hear you.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A Newfoundlander trying to cool down someone from Skeena will get beat out. I was saying, if the hon. member will listen, that the Saskatchewan conservation house covers 80 per cent of its heating bill by passive solar heat and insulation, a $125 heating bill for 1,760 square feet. We have good programs in this country such as the CHIP program, the energy bus program and so on. But the government is not getting out these programs to the people. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), and I, hope to make a proposal later with respect to neighbourhood conservation, an area where it really matters.
Conservation is no longer an aesthetic or a moral issue. It is now a matter of survival. If there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia like in Iran, then the game is over for the industrialized world. That is a serious matter. We in the NDP are ready to offer ideas and alternatives, and some serious energy policies which we do not see in the Speech from the Throne.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are ready to listen to our sisters and brothers from Quebec. We are ready to work together after the referendum and set up a new social democracy for ordinary people but not for large corporations. We have learned a lesson from social democrats. Economic planning is possible in all areas and provinces of the country.

We are learning, and I say this frankly to my own party, that there can be economic planning and socialism in the regions of Canada. We will see in the next few years, I hope, our party regaining the governments of Manitoba and British Columbia for social democracy, and we will continue our experiments there.
The Address-Mr. Ouellet


An hon. Member:: Experiments?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: And continue our good government there.


Mr. Siddon:: Experiments. You said it right the first time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to conclude by saying that I am very proud, not of the social crediters over here from British Columbia, but of my colleagues.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will ask the hon. member to write me a letter. I am very proud of my colleagues. We have activist ministers, teachers, social and community workers, storefront lawyers, and a host of other occupations. We have a young caucus which is willing to be the real opposition in this Parliament, it seems to me that we are a group of people who fought the battles of the 1960s and the 1970s, not like the Prime Minister who did it from high above, but from a street level and gut level.
We have added our experiences to the rock of the Woods-worthian tradition, and I am proud of it. I am proud of the principles of the NDP and the civil liberties traditions of our party.
There are many more things which I would like to say tonight, but 1 hope that 1 will get a chance later. I would like to conclude by quoting someone whom I very much admired as a law student. The gentleman's name is Frank Scott, a great lawyer and poet, who said:
From those condemned to labour For profit of another We take our new endeavour.
For sect and class and pattern Through whom the strata harden We sharpen now the weapon.
Till power is brought to pooling And the outcasts share in ruling There will not be an ending Nor any peace for spending.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to pay tribute to the new Speaker of the House, the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mrs. Sauve), to congratulate her on her appointment and wish her much success in her new responsibilities. I would also like to congratulate the member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for their timely and sensible comments. I believe that the prestige of Parliament will be enhanced by the arrival of both new members and we must surely be grateful to their electors for having sent them to Ottawa.

April 15, 1980
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
Mr. Speaker, I am aware here today that I am probably delivering the most important speech of my political career. And it is to the voters of my riding of Montreal-Papineau that I want to speak to first of all. And, through you, I want by the same token to speak to all my fellow Canadians living in the province of Quebec, not Quebeckers, no, Canadians living in the province of Quebec. And I set that straight because I think it is high time that we do so because we have for several years now suffered, endured, and tolerated a subtle, sneaky, and machiavellian campaign bent on downgrading Canadian entity, Canadian federalism, Canadian institutions while at the same time we have been beset from all sides by an endless and sustained propaganda aimed at glorifying Quebec's specificity, beautifying the Quebec identity, and sanctifying the word Quebec. In short, we have had a martyr made of Quebec and a villain of Canada. And I think that joke has lasted long enough of having us believe that Canada is a dirty word and that we must always necessarily talk about Quebec. I suggest that this invading propaganda has been the systematic work, of course, of convinced separatists, who have infiltrated everywhere in Quebec, in all quarters, at all levels, in the area of education first, then in the area of information, in the artistic community, of course, in the trade union realm, in the agricultural world, in the provincial public service and also in the federal public service, in intermediary bodies, in professional organizations, in social clubs and even in charitable organizations.
Those separatists have striven hard to spread their philosophy. Without any scrupules, they have carried out their biased activities without any respect for objectivity and have constantly criticized the Government of Canada for nothing and everything. In the name of a free Quebec, and probably in search of equality, they have scandalously abused that extraordinary freedom that is unequalled in Canada. Those teachers who were required to teach objectively have set young Quebeckers against Canada and those reporters who were paid to be objective have minimized for all sorts of reasons federalist activities and heralded separatist activities. We had vivid evidence of that just this past weekend. They talked about an immense success of a meeting of 500 people in Donnacona and a half-success of a meeting of more than 3,000 federalists in Chicoutimi. Those artists, overpaid by the CBC, who have been whining about this country for years, those unionmen and politicians have enjoyed total freedom in their work of torpedoing Canadian unity. There is no doubt that if these people had tried to do this in any other country around the world, they would have been socked, they would have been clubbed, they would have been jailed. More still, in a number of countries they would have been shot for doing less than they could do in Canada, this free country of ours, where they had total freedom to hamper things wherever they could, in order to be able to say that everything went wrong in Canada, where they could unchallenged apply the slogan: "If you don't spare the lies, some will catch on."
There have been so many lies told about Canada that some people in Quebec are led to believe despite themselves that this country is bad for them. The referendum in Quebec will not happen just like that, Madam Speaker. It is being held because, of course, they are people who want Quebec to secede, but also and foremost because there are people in the Canadian government who allow that kind of freedom of thought, freedom of action, freedom of contestation to go on. That it is possible to enjoy in this country such a degree of democracy, of freedom and utmost equality is a tribute to our Canadian federalism.
In Canada, Canadians are really free, and that freedom is closely protected by our federal political system, with its two levels of governments to serve the people. Different levels whose raison d'etre is complementation rather than duplication, to ensure healthy emulation in the interest of people, to provide Canadians with all the services and benefits they require. Indeed some people have been seen time and again to approach the other level of government in order to get better service.
In some cases, people go to the federal level saying the province is not doing exactly what they want, and asking for an improvement. And in a number of circumstances the federal government stepped in and granted their request. Conversely, wherever the Canadian government did not fully assume its responsibilities, provincial authorities were seen a number of times playing a suppletive role, stepping in and completing the work of the higher level in order to better serve its citizens. So, Madam Speaker, certain groups in Quebec want a new government. A government which would be that of a free Quebec and would, of course, bring about a unitary state with a single level of government. Quebec separatists tell Canadians and Quebeckers that there is no need for two levels of government, that this is more expensive, that it results in duplication and that it would be much better to have only one, the Quebec level. However, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the citizens would have the same freedom? How would they be protected against the abuses of such a unitary state? Would they be better served? I am not saying that there would necessarily be less freedom and services provided to Quebeckers under a unitary system. However, what I am saying is that Canada is an experience that we are living and that has already proved worth while. I An independent and free Quebec represents the unknown and uncertainty. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to my constituents of Montreal-Papineau: You will have the opportunity to take part in a referendum on May 20. The simple fact that you will be able to express your feelings secretly and democratically about the future of Quebec within or without Canada shows that you live in one of the freest countries of the world, and I hope that you will remember this and take this freedom into account when you make your choice.
April 15, 1980

1 have no intention of trying tonight to quote figures or to use any kind of argument to influence the choice of my fellow citizens or to decide in their place, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have really great confidence in the decision that my constituents will make and 1 am very optimistic about this referendum. I am not afraid of the results of this electoral consultation because I have a profound belief in my country, in Canada, and 1 am well aware of the judgment and the good sense of Canadians who live in Quebec and who want to remain Canadians. I have therefore no hesitation in saying that this separatist move on the part of Rene Levesque and his colleagues will fail.
Quebeckers will see further than this ambiguous and misleading question, further than all the publicity, the propaganda and the scenario put together by out and out separatists, and they will realize that the ultimate objective of the Parti Quebecois is to separate Quebec from Canada; they will realize the danger of going too far in the process of dislocating the country, in the eternal phasing promoted by Claude Morin. 1 am certain that the majority of them will vote No on May 20.
Mr. Speaker, the PQ was elected in 1976 in Quebec because it had promised to be a good government, to operate within the context of the Canadian confederation, to play the Canadian game fairly, and to hold a referendum as soon as possible on the first option of that party, namely the independence of Quebec. That party has failed to meet any of these three promises. The PQ government has increased the indebtedness of Quebec more than any other government before. Although it had promised to ensure peace in labour relations, we all know that Quebec citizens are plagued with a great many and endless strikes in the public sectors: schools, hospitals, public transit systems.
The PQ government demonstrates more than any other an arrogant and off-hand attitude towards the private sector. It has forced companies out of Quebec, it has prevented others from coming to Quebec and by doing so it has deprived Quebec workers of thousands of jobs. Rather than playing his part in Canadian federalism, Mr. Rene Levesque made a fool of himself at federal-provincial conferences by sulking and slamming doors. We saw that not only at one but at two successive federal-provincial conferences. He has not played the federalism game like he said he would. His minister, Mr. Claude Morin, and his comic book peddler, Mr. Yves Michaud, have cultivated world diplomacy and have acted as if Quebec was a totally different country from Canada.
Finally, we have had to wait almost four years before the referendum is held, and not only have we waited four years, or more exactly three and a half years for the Quebec referendum, but the clear and precise question on the independence of Quebec is not even asked in the referendum. Not only is this clear and precise question not asked, but they even have the nerve to add in the question that there will probably be
Adjournment Debate
another referendum a bit later. That is outright deception and abuse of power against the population of Quebec.
1 say that this government, which had made quite precise commitments on the eve of the 1976 election, has broken its promises and has acted deceitfully toward the population. Today, on the eve of this referendum, we cannot trust this government which is asking for a mandate when we know very well that at the first opportunity it will betray this mandate which could be given by the population of the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I see it is now ten o'clock and with your permission, I will resume my remarks tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, today in the province of Ontario there are some major problems confronting a number of workers, in fact a large number of workers, and I raised two questions with the minister. One was whether or not he could provide information for the House regarding the terms and the guarantees that were given at the time the federal government entered into a $68 million guarantee for the Ford Motor Company. Second, I asked whether the minister might be able to tell the House what sort of steps he proposed to take in order to ensure that the workers in the province of Ontario faced with these very difficult times would be at least guaranteed some form of support.
In this province the auto industry is in a very sorry state. As of today, the casting plant in Windsor will be mothballed. It may open some day in the future, but there is no guarantee. At the moment, 900 employees there will be out of work. In Oakville, another Ford plant, one shift will be laid off with 1,500 workers unemployed. All told in the province there are some 20,000 workers in the auto industry who are presently unemployed or about to become unemployed. That does not take into account the impact of what is happening with Chrysler or the snowballing effect that the closures of Ford and Chrysler will have on the subsidiary industry and of the suppliers who relate directly to those two major corporations.
I found the minister's answer quite unsatisfactory because, to the question of what were the guarantees, he answered that he could not tell me. He could not tell me because he had to have the permission of the Ford Motor Company before he could tell us what guarantees were written into the agreement which gave $68 million of tax money to Ford. It is ludicrous to

April 15, 1980
Adjournment Debate
think that in any business arrangement the person who put up the money would not at least have the right to immediate access to the guarantees and, in the case of a public agency, would not be able to report to the public from where the money comes or what sorts of commitments they were able to get at the time that guarantee or contract was made.
As to the second question, the minister's answer was simply that he was meeting no doubt with a large number of industry people in an effort to try to find a solution. 1 suggest that he might take another look at the auto industry.
The auto industry and the way in which it must be dealt with must be dramatically changed in this country. We cannot possibly allow the kind of piecemeal approach that has been used over the course of the last number of years in terms of trying to rationalize an industry that is in such a state of decay. Chrysler is on the verge of bankruptcy, if not in fact bankrupt. Ford Motor Company will lose about $1 billion this year. Who is next?
We are having meetings, meetings with suppliers and with the industry. We are in the process of considering whether it might be appropriate to loan, guarantee, or otherwise make available to Chrysler Corporation some half a billion dollars. As soon as that decision is made, Ford will be standing with its nose in the trough trying to find out just what share of the public purse it will be able to enjoy.
There has to be a reordered auto industry in this country. The auto industry is to blame for all of its own problems. Surely it must have been able to see as far back as seven or eight years ago that a dramatic shift was taking place in the purchasing preference of the people of North America. Surely it must have been able to project ahead and to see that the energy crunch that was becoming apparent was going to cause all kinds of difficulties for the monstrous vehicles that it built.
However, the companies did no proper planning. They did not make the transition, they did not invest the money, they did not involve themselves as good corporate citizens might have been expected to do in attempting to find the solution which would have kept their industries viable and competitive.
I think the minister has to sit down with these companies at the highest level. He has to say to them that this transition which is about to take place must take place now, and that there can be no public funds made available unless the people of the province of Ontario who are presently involved in the operation, the Government of Canada, and the people of Canada who will be putting up the money, are guaranteed that the outcome of whatever is finally decided will be that the auto industry in the North American continent, and in Canada in particular, will be competitive with the European auto manufacturers not only here but also in other parts of the world, and will be able to compete free from the encumbrances of parent companies in the United States.
I ask the minister to address himself to those matters. They are vital to the economy of this province and vital to the economy of this country. Two out of every ten people in this province work in the auto industry or in related industries, and
I suggest that without it we are going to be in a very sorry state in many communities.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed to hear the hon. member who seems to be dissatisfied with the judicious reply the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) gave him this afternoon, simply that he could not give out the information requested without having obtained permission to do so from the Ford company. 1 must point out to the hon. member that, whether it be a union contract, that of an automobile company, or any other contract, even that of marriage, two parties are always involved. The hon. member seems to forget that when responsible people sign a contract they agree on certain premises, they agree to co-operate, and in view of present circumstances, all the more so with regard to jobs in the province of Ontario. To my mind, he should expect the representatives of the Crown to act responsibly. I shall continue in English.

As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said this afternoon, this matter is one of deep concern to himself and to the government. He is meeting tomorrow with representatives of the United Auto Workers to discuss this matter, and is also seeking an early meeting with the president of Ford for the same purpose. Within days of becoming Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the minister began a series of talks with presidents of the automobile manufacturing companies with a view to getting new commitments from them for additional activity in Canada, particularly in the areas of job creation, research and development, and additional production. If the hon. member had read the press during that period of time, I am sure he would have read the comments of the minister.
The minister also has met with the UAW and with independent parts manufacturers-who are greatly concentrated in the province of Quebec and who are very concerned about the activities of Ford and Chrysler-to discuss how improvements can be made to the operation of the Canadian automotive industry.
The minister intends to go on and have similar meetings with presidents of the parent companies prior to beginning formal consultation under the provisions of the auto pact. This is an important question for all of Canada, not just for Ontario. I refer to the renewal of that pact with the American government. The minister's objective and that of the government is to seek a better operation of the auto pact in the interest of Canadian workers.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. As the hon. member did himself when he sat in the Chair, with every possible consideration I must now interrupt him and tell him that the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Wednesday, April 16, 1980